Court Opinion

ID: 9918811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 17:17:25.107182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:53.391817
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cash Wright,                                    :
                       Appellant                :
                                                :    No. 1204 C.D. 2021
               v.                               :
                                                :    Submitted: December 4, 2023
Office of Open Records                          :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
               HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
               HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                           FILED: January 16, 2024

               Cash Wright (Requester) appeals pro se from the July 14, 2021 Order
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying his
appeal of the Final Determination issued by the Office of Open Records (OOR), which
dismissed as untimely the appeal of his Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 request
concerning a sheriff’s sale in the City of Philadelphia (City). Upon review, we affirm.
                           I. Background and Procedural History
               On September 19, 2020, Requester submitted a request to the City under
the RTKL seeking records related to a February 19, 2020 sheriff’s sale, which he
alleged, was inappropriately conducted to his detriment (Request). The City invoked

      1
          Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 - 67.3104.
a 30-day extension to respond to his Request on September 25, 2020,2 and before that
extension period expired, the City asked for an additional 30 days to respond on
October 22, 2020.3 However, Requester did not send a written response addressing the
extension.4
               Requester appealed to OOR on December 1, 2020.5 OOR entered a
deficiency order directing him to submit a copy of his Request along with the City’s

       2
         Section 901 of the RTKL provides that the time for an agency to a respond to a request “shall
not exceed five business days from the date the written request is received by the open-records officer
for an agency. If the agency fails to send the response within five business days of receipt of the
written request for access, the written request for access shall be deemed denied.” 65 P.S. § 67.901.
However, when additional time is necessary for an agency to fulfill a request, Section 902(a) of the
RTKL allows it to invoke a 30-day extension under certain circumstances, including staffing
limitations and additional time needed for legal review, which were cited by the City in this case. 65
P.S. § 67.902(a).

       3
         Under Section 902(b)(2) of the RTKL, an agency must provide notice of its need for an
extension. This provision states in relevant part:
               (2) The notice shall include a statement notifying the requester that the
               request for access is being reviewed, the reason for the review, a
               reasonable date that a response is expected to be provided and an
               estimate of applicable fees owed when the record becomes available.
               If the date that a response is expected to be provided is in excess of
               30 days, following the five business days allowed for in section 901,
               the request for access shall be deemed denied unless the requester
               has agreed in writing to an extension to the date specified in the
               notice.
65 P.S. § 67.902(b)(2) (emphasis added).

       4
         The City sent a response to Requester on November 23, 2020, (Trial Ct. Op. at 2), which he
apparently considers unsatisfactory, as he maintains that “he never spoke to or received any written
correspondence from any Right To Know Officer[.]” (Requestor’s Br., at 5.)
       5
         Regarding the appeal period, Section 1101(a)(1) of the RTKL provides: “(1) If a written
request for access to a record is denied or deemed denied, the requester may file an appeal with the
Office of Open Records . . . within 15 business days of the mailing date of the agency’s response
or within 15 business days of a deemed denial.” 65 P.S. § 67.1101(a)(1) (emphasis added).

                                                  2
response, which Requester provided on December 15, 2020. OOR issued a Final
Determination on January 4, 2021, dismissing Requester’s appeal as untimely. OOR
explained that it lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and stated as follows:

             Requester submitted the City’s September 25, 2020 notice
             invoking a thirty-day extension, as well as an email dated
             October 22, 2020 seeking additional time to respond. On
             December 29, 2020, the City submitted an affidavit made
             under the penalty of perjury from Nora Day, Legal Assistant
             in the City’s Law Department. Ms. Day attests that on
             October 22, 2020 she sought an additional extension to
             respond; however, she confirms there was no written
             agreement from the Requester agreeing to the extension.
             Even if the parties had an oral agreement to extend the date
             to respond to the Request, because there was no agreement
             in writing from the Requester, the Request was deemed
             denied on October 26, 2020. Based on the deemed denial
             date of October 26, 2020, the appeal was to be filed by
             November 17, 2020. Because the OOR received the appeal
             on December 1, 2020, more than fifteen days after the
             Request was deemed denied, the appeal is dismissed as
             untimely, and the City is not required to take any further
             action.
(OOR Final Determination, at 2-3) (footnotes omitted).
             Requester filed an appeal from OOR’s Final Determination in the trial
court on January 29, 2021. The trial court held a hearing via Zoom video conferencing
on July 14, 2021, at which Requester appeared pro se and the City was represented by
counsel. Requester testified in pertinent part as follows:
             This matter results from a sheriff’s sale. It was a large
             property, almost two acres, unheard of in sheriff’s sale, city
             of Philadelphia standards, very rare. It was like a 30-year
             offering. And I felt that–there’s bidders that usually come to
             the auction and they consider what high rollers they buy
             probably 95 percent of the viable property. . . . What was I
             was looking for was the records of these repeat buyers, these
             preferential buyers, find out the percentage, some statistics

                                           3
               as to how many properties they buy and where they bought
               them. . . . I was the only one that rose to my feet and made
               an initial bid, and there was no challenging bid. So [the
               auctioneer] went on this charade of intimidating me,
               insulting me and buying time to other bidders, select bidders.
               . . . I should have been the winning bidder from the offset of
               the auction[.]

(Notes of Testimony, 7/14/21, at 9-11.) When asked about the timeliness of his appeal
to OOR, Requester opined that the legislature did not intend for RTKL requests to be
dismissed based on “a date controversy.” Id. at 6. After the hearing, the trial court
entered an Order denying Requester’s appeal. Requester filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Pennsylvania Superior Court on August 9, 2021, and that Court transferred the case
to us.
                The trial court issued an opinion on December 3, 2021, explaining that
because Requester’s appeal was filed after the 15-day deadline prescribed by the
RTKL, OOR properly dismissed it as untimely. (Trial Ct. Op., 12/03/21, at 7-10.) The
court additionally noted that Requester failed to produce any evidence to support his
allegation that the City engaged in “scam tactics” or other inappropriate conduct,
despite being provided with ample opportunity to do so at the July 2021 hearing. Id.
at 6-7.
                                             II. Analysis
               On appeal,6 Requester contends the trial court erred in failing to find that
the City disregarded its obligation under the RTKL to provide him with information

          6
         Our standard of review of determinations made by OOR appeals officers under the RTKL
is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453, 477
(Pa. 2013). We are also mindful that our “goal when interpreting a statute is to ascertain and effectuate
the General Assembly’s intent,” and that the plain language of a statute is generally the best indicator
thereof. Ghaderi v. State Board of Osteopathic Medicine, 302 A.3d 240, 244 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023).

                                                   4
concerning the February 2020 sheriff’s sale. (Requester’s Br. at 4, 8-10.) Requester
also challenges OOR’s dismissal of his appeal as untimely. Id. at 5, 10.
               “Initially, the purpose of the RTKL is to promote access to official
government information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public
officials, and make public officials accountable for their actions.” In re Melamed, 287
A.3d 491, 497 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). Although an agency has an obligation to provide
information in good faith to requesters under the RTKL, the statute imposes certain
requirements relating to extensions. Specifically, as noted, Section 902(b)(2) provides
that where the response from an agency is expected to exceed 30 days, that request
“shall be deemed denied unless the requester has agreed in writing to an extension
to the date specified in the notice.” 65 P.S. § 67.902(b)(2) (emphasis added).
               In the instant case, after invoking the initial 30-day extension period
concerning the Request, the City requested an additional extension, citing staffing
limitations and other logistical constraints. Requester, however, failed to respond to
the communication in writing, as required by Section 902. Therefore, the extension
was not implemented, and the Request was deemed denied, triggering the15-day appeal
period. See Section 1101 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1101. Because Requester did not
file his appeal with OOR within 15 business days of the deemed denial of his Request,
the appeal was untimely, thereby depriving OOR and the trial court of jurisdiction over
the matter.     Therefore, the trial court properly affirmed the Final Determination of
OOR.7

                                                  ________________________________
                                                  PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

       7
          Regarding the merits of Requester’s argument, we agree with the trial court’s assessment
that he has provided no support for his threadbare claim that the City conducted itself inappropriately
or deceptively in handling his Request.

                                                  5
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cash Wright,                         :
                 Appellant           :
                                     :    No. 1204 C.D. 2021
           v.                        :
                                     :
Office of Open Records               :

                                  ORDER

           AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2024, the July 14, 2021 Order
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                         ________________________________
                                         PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge