Court Opinion

ID: 9915429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 15:09:26.801389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:01.962812
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Southeastern Pennsylvania              :
Transportation Authority,              :
                            Petitioner :
                                       :
             v.                        : No. 1255 C.D. 2022
                                       : Submitted: May 5, 2023
Erik Steinheiser (Office of            :
Open Records),                         :
                            Respondent :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
             HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                      FILED: January 5, 2024

      The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) petitions
for review of the October 13, 2022 final determination of the Office of Open Records
(OOR). The OOR’s final determination directed SEPTA to provide Erik Steinheiser
(Steinheiser) with surveillance footage he requested, subject to redactions to protect
the personal security of SEPTA personnel under Section 708(b)(1)(ii) of the Right-
to-Know Law (Law), Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(1)(ii).
SEPTA argues the video should be exempt from disclosure in its entirety, and, in the
alternative, Steinheiser should have to pay for the cost of redactions. After careful
review, we vacate and remand.
                                    I. Background
      On July 8, 2022, SEPTA Police responded to the West Trenton Regional Rail
Line after receiving a report of “a male wearing body armor seated directly next to
the train engineer’s control stand.” Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 18a. When police
arrived, they identified the male as Steinheiser. Id. Additionally, the police learned
Steinheiser was lawfully in possession of a loaded firearm. Id. Because the train
engineer and conductors refused to transport Steinheiser, the police offered to drive
him to his destination in a squad car. Id. Steinheiser was unwilling to relinquish his
firearm while in the squad car, so the police instead placed him “on the next Regional
Rail train in a car with a police escort.” Id.
      Steinheiser submitted a request for public records to SEPTA on July 10, 2022.
He explained his request as follows:

      I am requesting video surveillance of all cameras on the West Trenton
      Line R3 for the 12:31 train scheduled to depart from Langhorne Station
      on Friday, July 8th 2022. This would be train number 6321 from the
      schedule. I am requesting all footage on all cameras on the train from
      Langhorne Station up to the end of the route. There was a police action
      incident at Somerton Station on this train that I also want full and
      complete footage included in this request.

R.R. at 1a.
      SEPTA denied Steinheiser’s request on August 17, 2022. SEPTA contended
the video was exempt from disclosure under the personal security exception found
at Section 708(b)(1)(ii) of the Law. R.R. at 4a. SEPTA reasoned releasing the video
would create “a reasonable likelihood of a substantial and demonstrable risk to the
security of the SEPTA Police Officers and SEPTA train engineers and conductor.”
Id.

                                           2
       Steinheiser appealed to the OOR. In defense of its decision, SEPTA submitted
an affidavit from its Acting Chief of Police Charles Lawson (Chief Lawson). Chief
Lawson averred releasing the video would endanger SEPTA personnel. R.R. at 18a-
19a. He explained the video “depicts the train engineer and conductors who refused
to transport” Steinheiser on July 8, 2022. Id. Based on Chief Lawson’s training and
experience in law enforcement, there was a risk Steinheiser “will be able to identify
and find those SEPTA personnel” and then “potentially use his firearm against them
and/or harass them via other means.” Id. at 19a. Chief Lawson added that members
of the public might “be able to identify and find those SEPTA personnel, and harass
them.”1 Id.
       The OOR issued a final determination on October 13, 2022, granting in part
and denying in part Steinheiser’s appeal. The OOR found Chief Lawson credible
and concluded release of the video “would likely create a very real threat of physical
harm to those SEPTA personnel.” R.R. at 128a. Because SEPTA did not establish
any threat to members of the public, however, and because the public would not have
an expectation of privacy while riding public transportation, the OOR concluded the
video was not exempt in its entirety. Id. The OOR directed that SEPTA could redact
“faces or any other identifying information of SEPTA personnel” but must otherwise
release the video. Id.
       SEPTA filed a petition for review in this Court. SEPTA argues (1) the video
is exempt from disclosure in its entirety because its release would pose a risk of harm
to the public, (2) Steinheiser should pay the cost of SEPTA retaining a third-party
vendor to redact the video, and (3) we may hold a hearing or remand to the OOR to

1
  SEPTA also submitted the SEPTA Police incident report from July 8, 2022, data showing arrests
by SEPTA Police for alleged crimes involving guns, and a SEPTA policy prohibiting “threatening
items” on SEPTA property. R.R. at 15a-16a, 21a-95a, 116a-17a.

                                              3
develop the record on the reasonable cost of redaction and Steinheiser’s willingness
to pay.
                                         II. Discussion
       When reviewing the OOR’s final determination regarding public records, this
Court is the ultimate fact-finder and conducts de novo review, meaning we owe the
OOR no deference. Am. C.L. Union of Pa. v. Pa. State Police, 232 A.3d 654, 662-
63 (Pa. 2020). We need not defer to the OOR, but we may adopt its findings of fact
and legal conclusions when appropriate. Id. (quoting Bowling v. Off. of Open Recs.,
75 A.3d 453, 474 (Pa. 2013)).
       Records in possession of Commonwealth and local agencies are presumed to
be public. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Friedman, 293 A.3d 803, 814-15 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2023) (citing Section 305(a) of the Law, 65 P.S. § 67.305(a)). The burden rests on
an agency to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Law’s exceptions to
disclosure apply.2 Cal. Univ. of Pa. v. Schackner, 168 A.3d 413, 417 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2017) (citing Brown v. Pa. Dep’t of State, 123 A.3d 801, 804 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015));
see Section 708(a)(1) of the Law, 65 P.S. § 67.708(a)(1). We construe the exceptions
narrowly, consistent with the Law’s “goal of promoting government transparency
and its remedial nature.” Cal. Borough v. Rothey, 185 A.3d 456, 465 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018) (quoting Off. of Governor v. Davis, 122 A.3d 1185, 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)
(en banc)).
       As summarized above, SEPTA relies on the personal security exception found
at Section 708(b)(1)(ii) of the Law. To meet its burden of proof under this exception,

2
 An agency meets its burden if it proves, “even by the smallest amount,” that it is more likely than
not the record is exempt from disclosure. See Povacz v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 280 A.3d 975,
999 n.25 (Pa. 2022); Del. Cnty. v. Schaefer ex. rel. Phila. Inquirer, 45 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2012).

                                                 4
SEPTA must establish a “reasonable likelihood” of an alleged harm. Rothey, 185
A.3d at 468. Speculation and conjecture do not suffice. Id. (citing Lutz v. City of
Phila., 6 A.3d 669, 676 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)). The exception provides as follows:

      (b) Exceptions.--Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), the
      following are exempt from access by a requester under this act:

               (1) A record, the disclosure of which:

                     ....

                     (ii) would be reasonably likely to result in a
                     substantial and demonstrable risk of physical
                     harm to or the personal security of an
                     individual.

65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(1)(ii).
      In its first issue, SEPTA emphasizes the OOR’s conclusion that releasing the
video will pose a risk to the personal security of SEPTA personnel. SEPTA’s Br. at
11-17. SEPTA argues, based on Chief Lawson’s affidavit, that the public will also
be at risk should the video be released. Id. Thus, it asks that we “allow for exclusion
of the entirety of the video given the risk of harm to the public.” Id. at 11. SEPTA
relies on the following excerpt from Chief Lawson’s affidavit:

      The train video depicts the train engineer and conductors who refused
      to transport a passenger with a loaded firearm. Based on my training
      and experience in law enforcement, there is a risk to the safety of the
      SEPTA personnel who responded to this incident if the video footage
      of the incident is provided to members of the public. The risk is that
      members of the public will be able to identify and find those SEPTA
      personnel, and harass them.

R.R. at 19a.

                                           5
       The personal security exception addresses risks of harm to, and the personal
security of, “an individual,” rather than the general public. 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(1)(ii)
(emphasis added). It may apply to a group of individuals “based upon evidence that
establishes that the release of certain information poses a likelihood of a substantial
and demonstrable risk to the personal security of that group of individuals.” Crocco
v. Pa. Dep’t of Health, 214 A.3d 316 (Pa. 2019) (quoting State Emps. Ret. Sys. v.
Fultz, 107 A.3d 860, 868 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)). Even so, Chief Lawson did not aver
in his affidavit that releasing the video will pose a risk of harm to any members of
the public present during the incident on July 8, 2022. He averred there will be a
risk of harm to SEPTA personnel should the video be released to the public. Our
review of the record does not reveal any indication, in Chief Lawson’s affidavit or
elsewhere, that members of the public will be at risk of harm should the video be
released. Therefore, SEPTA’s first issue fails.
       SEPTA’s second issue involves the OOR’s directive that it could redact faces
or identifying information of SEPTA personnel before releasing the video. SEPTA
contends it lacks the ability to redact the video internally and would need to retain a
third-party vendor to perform the redactions. SEPTA’s Br. at 11-12, 18-19. Citing
an affidavit and estimate, which it submitted for the first time as attachments to its
petition for review, SEPTA contends redacting the video would cost approximately
$22,200.3 Id. at 19. According to SEPTA, it asked Steinheiser to prepay the cost of
the redactions, but he refused. Id. at 19-20. SEPTA asks that we require Steinheiser
to “make a credible commitment of his intent to pay for the reproduced record in a

3
  Specifically, SEPTA attached an affidavit from William Marchesani, the Technical Manager of
its Video Surveillance Department, and an e-mail from a third party containing the estimated cost
of redactions. R.R. at 156a-58a. The $22,200 estimated cost derives from the fact that Steinheiser
requested 2 hours of footage involving 56 different cameras, approximately. Id.

                                                6
redacted form prior to requiring SEPTA to expend substantial public monies to retain
an outside vendor to accomplish reproduction of the video.” Id. at 20.
      Similarly, in its third issue, SEPTA suggests this Court may hold a hearing or
remand the case to the OOR if we determine “that the record is not complete on the
issue of the cost and feasibility of redaction.” SEPTA’s Br. at 20. SEPTA explains
the parties did not address the question of redaction before the OOR, and, as a result,
it did not obtain a cost estimate until after the OOR issued a final determination. Id.
SEPTA adds we may also hold a hearing or remand to address Steinheiser’s “intent
to pay for the actual cost SEPTA will incur” to redact the video. Id. at 21.
      SEPTA justifies its request for prepayment by citing Section 1307 of the Law.
In relevant part, that section provides as follows:

      (b) Duplication.—

             (1) Fees for duplication by photocopying, printing from
             electronic media or microfilm, copying onto electronic
             media, transmission by facsimile or other electronic means
             and other means of duplication shall be established:

                    (i) by the [OOR], for Commonwealth
                    agencies and local agencies;

                    ....

             (2) The fees must be reasonable and based on prevailing
             fees for comparable duplication services provided by local
             business entities.

      ....

      (g) Limitations.--Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other
      fees may be imposed unless the agency necessarily incurs costs for
      complying with the request, and such fees must be reasonable. No fee
      may be imposed for an agency’s review of a record to determine

                                           7
       whether the record is a public record, legislative record or financial
       record subject to access in accordance with this act.

       (h) Prepayment.--Prior to granting a request for access in accordance
       with this act, an agency may require a requester to prepay an estimate
       of the fees authorized under this section if the fees required to fulfill the
       request are expected to exceed $100.

65 P.S. § 67.1307(b)(1)-(2), (g)-(h).
       SEPTA’s affidavit and estimate indicate it lacks the ability to redact the video
in compliance with the OOR’s final determination and will necessarily incur the cost
of retaining a third-party vendor to perform the redactions. If the cost of redactions
is necessary and reasonable under Section 1307(g), SEPTA may require prepayment
under Section 1307(h) before producing the redacted video. Nonetheless, due to the
procedural posture of this case, the OOR has not had the opportunity to address the
necessity and reasonableness of SEPTA’s estimated cost. We believe the best course
of action is to remand so that SEPTA may supplement the record and the OOR may
rule on these issues in the first instance.
       On remand, we encourage the parties to reach an amicable resolution of this
dispute. The parties may, as SEPTA proposes, compromise on the estimated cost of
redactions by reducing the amount of video Steinheiser receives. See SEPTA’s Br.
at 20. It may be possible to provide Steinheiser with a video that adequately captures
the incident on July 8, 2022, without redacting what SEPTA describes as 2 hours of
footage from 56 cameras. See R.R. at 156a-58a. SEPTA should provide additional
estimates for, and Steinheiser may agree to receive, video that covers a shorter time
period or captures the incident from fewer than all camera angles.4

4
 The OOR’s official fee schedule provides that “[n]o additional fee may be imposed” for redacting
records.       Office      of    Open      Records,      Official    RTKL      Fee     Schedule,
https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/RTKL/FeeStructure.cfm (last visited January 4, 2023). We read
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                               8
                                         III. Conclusion
       Accordingly, we vacate the OOR’s October 13, 2022 final determination and
remand for consideration of the necessity and reasonableness of SEPTA’s estimated
cost of redactions under Section 1307(g).

                                                      ______________________________
                                                      STACY WALLACE, Judge

the OOR’s schedule to prohibit fees for time spent redacting records such as copied or printed
documents, rather than fees for the cost of retaining a third-party vendor to redact requested videos.
See Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Bagwell, 131 A.3d 638, 651 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (citing 65 P.S. §
67.1307(g); State Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Off. of Open Recs., 10 A.3d 358 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)). Section
1310(a)(8) of the Law, 65 P.S. § 67.1310(a)(8), directs the OOR must “[c]onduct a biannual review
of fees charged under this act.” It would be beneficial for the OOR to clarify if and when redaction
fees are permissible when it conducts its next biannual review.

                                                  9
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Southeastern Pennsylvania              :
Transportation Authority,              :
                            Petitioner :
                                       :
             v.                        : No. 1255 C.D. 2022
                                       :
Erik Steinheiser (Office of            :
Open Records),                         :
                            Respondent :

                                      ORDER

         AND NOW, this 5th day of January 2024, the Office of Open Records’ (OOR)
October 13, 2022 final determination is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED
to the OOR consistent with this Opinion. The OOR is directed to consider whether
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s estimated redaction costs
are necessary and reasonable under Section 1307(g) of the Right-to-Know Law, Act
of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. § 67.1307(g). The OOR shall issue a new final
determination from which an appeal may be taken within 45 days of the date of this
order.
         Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                         ______________________________
                                         STACY WALLACE, Judge