Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
IN THE MATTER OF :
:
NICOLE BRAMBILA AND READING :
EAGLE, :
Requester :
:
v. : Docket No: AP 2017-0374
:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF :
TRANSPORTATION, :
Respondent :
INTRODUCTION
Nicole Brambila (Requester), a reporter with the Reading Eagle, submitted a request
Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), 65 P.S. 67.101 et seq., seeking a 2008 feasibility study
related to REAL ID in Pennsylvania. The Department partially denied the Request, stating that
the study reflects the Departments internal, predecisional deliberations. The Requester appealed
to the Office of Open Records (OOR). For the reasons set forth in this Final Determination,
the appeal is granted, and the Department is required to further action as directed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2017, the Request was filed seeking copies of the 2008 feasibility study
1
Pennsylvania. On January 18, 2017,1 the Department invoked a thirty day extension during
which to respond. See 65 P.S. 67.902. On February 15, 2017, the Department directed the
Requester to the General Assemblys website that provides the estimated costs to implement the
REAL ID. The Department denied access to the feasibility study (Study) because it reflects the
On February 24, 2017, the Requester appealed to the OOR, challenging the denial and
stating grounds for disclosure. The OOR invited both parties to supplement the record and
directed the Department to notify any third parties of their ability to participate in this appeal.
On March 8, 2017, the Department submitted a position statement reiterating its grounds
for denial. In support of its position, the Department submitted a sworn affidavit from Kurt
Myers, Deputy Secretary for Driver and Vehicle Services with the Department.
On April 3, 2017, the Department submitted the Study and two draft versions of the
Study for in camera review to the OOR.2 The Requester agreed to allow the OOR until May 17,
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The objective of the Right to Know Law ... is to empower citizens by affording them
access to information concerning the activities of their government. SWB Yankees L.L.C. v.
Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029, 1041 (Pa. 2012). Further, this important open-government law is
scrutinize the actions of public officials and make public officials accountable for their
1
The Departments offices were closed on January 16, 2017 in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. As such,
the Departments extension notice was timely issued.
2
The privilege log and records submitted for in camera review included two draft versions of the Study; however,
the Requester clarified on April 26, 2017 that she is only seeking the final version of the Study.
2
actions. Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813, 824 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010), affd
The OOR is authorized to hear appeals for all Commonwealth and local agencies. See 65
P.S. 67.503(a). An appeals officer is required to review all information filed relating to the
request and may consider testimony, evidence and documents that are reasonably probative and
relevant to the matter at issue. 65 P.S. 67.1102(a)(2). An appeals officer may conduct a
hearing to resolve an appeal. The law also states that an appeals officer may admit into evidence
testimony, evidence and documents that the appeals officer believes to be reasonably probative
and relevant to an issue in dispute. Id. The decision to hold a hearing is discretionary and non-
appealable. Id.; Giurintano v. Pa. Dept of Gen. Servs., 20 A.3d 613, 617 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
2011). Here, the parties did not request a hearing; however, the OOR has the requisite
are presumed public unless exempt under the RTKL or other law or protected by a privilege,
judicial order or decree. See 65 P.S. 67.305. Upon receipt of a request, an agency is required
to assess whether a record requested is within its possession, custody or control and respond
within five business days. 65 P.S. 67.901. An agency bears the burden of proving the
Section 708 of the RTKL places the burden of proof on the public body to demonstrate
that a record is exempt. In pertinent part, Section 708(a) states: (1) The burden of proving that a
record of a Commonwealth agency or local agency is exempt from public access shall be on the
3
evidence. 65 P.S. 67.708(a)(1). Preponderance of the evidence has been defined as such
proof as leads the fact-finder to find that the existence of a contested fact is more probable
than its nonexistence. Pa. State Troopers Assn v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435, 439 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
2011) (quoting Pa. Dept of Transp. v. Agric. Lands Condemnation Approval Bd., 5 A.3d 821,
The Department claims that the Study reflects the Departments internal, predecisional
deliberations. Section 708(b)(10)(i)(A) of the RTKL exempts from public disclosure a record
that reflects:
must show: 1) the deliberations reflected are internal to the agency, including representatives; 2)
the deliberations reflected are predecisional, i.e., before a decision on an action; and 3) the
contents are deliberative in character, i.e., pertaining to a proposed action. See Kaplin v. Lower
Merion Twp., 19 A.3d 1209, 1214 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). To establish that records are
deliberative, an agency must show that the information relates to the deliberation of a particular
decision. McGowan v. Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 103 A.3d 374, 378-88 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
The term deliberation is generally defined as [t]he act of carefully considering issues and
options before making a decision or taking some action BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 492 (9th
ed. 2009); see also Heintzelman v. Pa. Dep't of Cmty. & Econ. Dev., OOR Dkt. AP 2014-0061,
2014 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 254, aff'd No. 512 C.D. 2014, 2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 644
4
Mr. Myers attests that the Study was created by Department employees and distributed
among Department personnel during the drafting stage and later with personnel of the
Governors Office. The Requester argues that the Study was shared with the Legislature when
voting for the related Senate Bill No. 354, and, therefore, cannot be internal to the Department.
with another agency. 65 P.S. 67.708(b)(10)(i)(A). The RTKL defines agency as [a]
Commonwealth agency, local agency, judicial agency or legislative agency. 65 P.S. 67.102.
Here, the Study is internal under Section 708(b)(10)(i)(A) because it was shared between
employees of entities that are defined as agencies under the RTKL. Kaplin, 19 A.3d 1209;
Vitali v. Pa. Office of the Governor, OOR Dkt. AP 2014-0903, 2014 PA O.O.R.D LEXIS 1112 .
To establish that records are deliberative, an agency must show that the information
relates to the deliberation of a particular decision. McGowan, 103 A.3d at 378-88. The term
deliberation is generally defined as [t]he act of carefully considering issues and options
before making a decision or taking some action.... BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 492 (9th ed.
2009); see also Heintzelman, OOR Dkt. AP 2014-0061, 2014 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 254. In order
on legal or policy matters and not be purely factual in nature. Furthermore, an agency must
submit evidence of specific facts showing how the information relates to a deliberation of a
particular decision. Carey v. Pa. Dept of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 379 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). In
affidavits detailing the withheld information related to the DEPs internal deliberations,
including draft documents to contemplate a future course of agency action. 103 A.3d 374.
5
Here, Mr. Myers attests that the Study was prepared prior to a decision during the
deliberative process. He attests that the Study examines multiple options and contemplates the
best course of action regarding the impact of adopting the federal REAL ID regulations. The
Study was used to weigh options and what course of action to take regarding the federal REAL
ID regulations. While the Study may have been used to consider options regarding the
implementation of REAL ID, the OOR has conducted an in camera review of the Study, and
those deliberations are not contained within the Study. Rather, the Study contains the underlying
factual bases for the deliberations, but not the deliberations themselves. Therefore, the
information contained in the Study is not deliberative in character. Further, there are no opinions
or recommendations contained within the Study, rather it is factual data related to the available
options to pursue. Based on the evidence provided and the OORs in camera review, the
Department has not met its burden of proving that the Study is exempt from disclosure. See 65
P.S. 67.708(a)(1).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Requesters appeal is granted, and the Department is required
to provide a copy of the Study within thirty days. This Final Determination is binding on all
parties. Within thirty days of the mailing date of this Final Determination, any party may appeal
to the Commonwealth Court. 65 P.S. 67.1301(a). All parties must be served with notice of the
appeal. The OOR also shall be served notice and have an opportunity to respond as per Section
1303 of the RTKL. However, as the quasi-judicial tribunal adjudicating this matter, the OOR is
not a proper party to any appeal and should not be named as a party.3 This Final Determination
3
See Padgett v. Pa. State Police, 73 A.3d 644, 648 n.5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
6
FINAL DETERMINATION ISSUED AND MAILED: May 15, 2017