Court Opinion

ID: 9947669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 15:14:18.777469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:15.735282
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Philip Jensen,                                  :
                       Petitioner               :
                                                :
               v.                               :
                                                :
Pennsylvania Department of                      :
Corrections (Office of Open Records),           :   No. 317 C.D. 2023
                   Respondent                   :   Submitted: February 6, 2024

BEFORE:        HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
               HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                                  FILED: March 5, 2024

               Philip Jensen (Jensen), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the
Office of Open Records’ (OOR) March 17, 2023 Final Determination (Final
Determination) denying and dismissing Jensen’s appeal from the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections’ (Department) denial of his Right-to-Know Law
(RTKL)1 request (Request). Jensen presents three issues for this Court’s review: (1)
whether the OOR erred and denied Jensen due process by relying on the
Department’s response and affidavit without affording Jensen an opportunity to
respond; (2) whether the OOR erred by crediting and relying on the Department’s
conclusory and generalized affidavit and failing to inquire who in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) would have responsive records;
and (3) whether the OOR erred by failing to find that the Department acted in bad
faith, and denying the Request based on the Department’s representations that it

      1
          Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
contacted a source that would not possess such records. After review, this Court
affirms.
              Jensen is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale.
On January 20, 2023, the Department received the Request seeking, in pertinent part,
“[a]ll line entr[ies]/financial ledger[s] of December, 2021 ‘custodial account’ [for]
resources of the [Department] for prison inmates.” Certified Record (C.R.) Item 1,
OOR Exhibit 1, at 9. Jensen attached relevant portions of the Commonwealth’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020
(Financial Report), which describes “[t]he [c]ustodial [a]ccounts” as “a custodial
fund [that] represents the combined resources held by the [Department] for prison
inmates[.]” C.R. Item 1 at 11. On January 24, 2023,2 the Department denied the
Request pursuant to Section 703 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.703, on the basis that the
Request lacked required specificity.
              On February 13, 2023, Jensen appealed from the Department’s denial
to the OOR arguing that the Request was sufficiently specific. Jensen referenced his
research, attached an excerpt from the Financial Report, and argued that records
responsive to the Request should exist. Further, Jensen argued that the Department
acted in bad faith by denying his Request.
              By February 23, 2023 correspondence to Jensen and the Department,
the OOR invited both parties to supplement the record and directed the Department
to notify any third parties of their ability to participate in the appeal. See Section
1101(c) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1101(c). On March 6, 2023, the Department
submitted a position statement in response to the appeal stating that it sent a copy to

       2
         The Department had exercised a 30-day extension to respond as authorized by Section
902(b) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.902(b).
                                             2
Jensen by regular mail; however, Jensen denies receiving the position statement.3
See C.R. Item 4, OOR Ex. 4, at 5. The Department summarized, based on Jensen’s
assertions in his appeal, that the Department conducted a good faith search and
consulted with relevant Department personnel to confirm that the Department was
not in possession, custody, or control of any records responsive to the Request. The
Department also submitted the attestation of its Open Records Officer Andrew
Filkosky (Filkosky) (Filkosky Attestation).4 The Filkosky Attestation stated, in
relevant part:

               5. In response to [] Jensen’s [] Request, this office
               contacted the Director of the Department’s Bureau of
               Administration which is responsible for all departmental
               budget and fiscal matters.
               6. That official explained that neither she nor officials
               within her office understand what records [] Jensen is
               referring to and seeking access to and therefore they
               cannot conduct a search for responsive records.
               7. As such, this office issued a Final Response to [] Jensen,
               dated January 24, 2023, indicating that his [] Request
               lacked sufficient specificity in order to enable the
               Department to conduct a good faith search. . . .
               8. Instead of submitting a follow-up Request sufficiently
               describing the records to which he seeks access, I am
               aware that [] Jensen has initiated an RTKL [a]ppeal to the
               [OOR] challenging the Department’s denial of his

       3
          In support of this contention, Jensen attached to his Petition for Review (Petition) to this
Court a copy of his incoming mail log from the Department (Mail Log), which purportedly lists
all incoming mail Jensen received between February 1, 2023, and March 21, 2023. The March 21,
2023 entry identifies the Department as a document’s sender. On the Mail Log Jensen attached to
his Petition, Jensen circled that entry and wrote: “This mailing was not it[.]” Petition, Ex. E at 1.
The Mail Log also reflects Jensen’s receipt of mail from the “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” on
the same date. The Certified Record contains no further information regarding the nature of the
incoming mail.
        4
          The Filkosky Attestation was made subject to the penalties under Section 4904 of the
Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
                                                  3
            requested access, and arguing that his Request was
            sufficiently specific.
            9. On [a]ppeal, [] Jensen repeatedly refers to and describes
            the records sought as being from one account, the
            “custodial account” containing the combined resources of
            the Department for all prison inmates. . . .
            10. In response to [] Jensen’s RTKL [a]ppeal filing, I
            shared another discussion with the Director of the
            Department’s Bureau of Administration where I extended
            [] Jensen’s assertions on [a]ppeal.
            11. In response, the Director explained to me that [] Jensen
            is basing his [] Request on a flawed premise; there is no
            one “custodial account” containing the combined
            resources of the Department for all of its inmates, and
            therefore the entries for December 2021 for that account
            that does not exist likewise do not exist.
            12. Therefore, after conducting a good faith search in
            response to [] Jensen’s [] Request as described above, I
            can state here that the Department does not possess any
            responsive records.

C.R. Item 4 at 6-7. The OOR’s docket does not reflect that Jensen sought to
supplement the record or otherwise respond to the OOR’s February 23, 2023
correspondence.
            On March 17, 2023, the OOR issued its Final Determination denying
Jensen’s appeal, reasoning:

            In the absence of any evidence that the Department has
            acted in bad faith or that responsive records do, in fact,
            exist, “the averments in the [Filkosky Attestation] should
            be accepted as true.” McGowan v. Pa. Dep’t of Env[’]t
            Prot., 103 A.3d 374, 382-83 (Pa. [Cmwlth.] 2014) (citing
            Off. of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1103 (Pa.
            [Cmwlth.] 2013)).
            Here, the Filkosky Attestation explains how the
            Department undertook a search of its records in sufficient
            detail. Specifically, in response to the Request and on
            appeal, [Filkosky] explains how he consulted more than

                                         4
              once with the Director of the Department’s Bureau of
              Administration, which is responsible for all departmental
              budget and fiscal matters. Filkosky Attestation ¶¶ 5, 10.
              Further, the Filkosky Attestation sufficiently explains that
              there is no one “custodial account” containing the
              combined resources of the Department for all its inmates,
              and therefore, the entries for December 2021 that [Jensen]
              seeks does [sic] not exist. Filkosky Attestation ¶¶ 11-12.
              The OOR recognizes that the Department cannot provide
              access to a record that does not exist in its possession.
              Accordingly, the Department’s submissions are sufficient
              to prove that it conducted a good faith search and that there
              are no records responsive to the Request in the
              Department’s possession, custody, or control.

C.R. Item 5, OOR Ex. 5, at 6. In a footnote, the OOR observed: “Despite [Jensen’s]
arguments, the OOR makes no determination as to whether records should exist,
only that the Department does not possess responsive records.” Id. n.3. With respect
to Jensen’s allegations of bad faith, the OOR concluded:

              [T]he evidence shows that the Department assessed and
              processed the Request and issued its final response to
              [Jensen]. Further, on appeal, the Department proved that
              it conducted a good faith search by consulting relevant
              Department personnel to confirm that it does not have
              responsive records in its possession, custody or control.
              Accordingly, the OOR declines to find that the
              Department acted in bad faith.

Id. at 7. Jensen appealed to this Court.5
              Initially, the RTKL mandates:

              [A] “Commonwealth agency [(i.e., the Department)] shall
              provide public records in accordance with [the RTKL].”
              [Section 301 of the RTKL,] 65 P.S. § 67.301. A record
              “in the possession of [a] Commonwealth agency . . . shall
              be presumed to be a public record” unless it is exempt

       5
        “[This Court’s] standard of review of a final determination issued by the OOR is de novo
and our scope of review is plenary.” Pa. Tpk. Comm’n v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp.,
230 A.3d 548, 556 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020).
                                               5
            under Section 708 [of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708], [as]
            privileged, or exempt from disclosure under other federal
            or state law or judicial order. [See Sections 305(a) and 701
            of the RTKL, 65 P.S.] §§ 67.305(a), 67.701. At the initial
            request stage, an agency is required to assess the public
            status of requested records, and, if applicable, specify
            reasons for denying access with “citation of supporting
            legal authority.” [Section 903 of the RTKL, 65 P.S.] §
            67.903.
McKelvey v. Pa. Dep’t of Health, 255 A.3d 385, 400 (Pa. 2021).
            Jensen first argues that the OOR erred and denied Jensen due process
by relying on the Department’s response and affidavit without affording Jensen an
opportunity to respond. However, the OOR’s February 23, 2023 correspondence
afforded Jensen the opportunity to participate, and he did not submit evidence or
argument in response thereto. Importantly,

            “[n]either the RTKL nor the courts have extended a
            right to discovery or a right to due process to a
            requesting party in a[n] RTKL action.” Sherry v.
            Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3d 515, 519 (Pa. Cmwlth.
            2011). Section 1309 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1309,
            provides that “[t]he provisions of [the Administrative
            Agency Law] (relating to administrative law and
            procedure) shall not apply to [the RTKL] unless
            specifically adopted by regulation or policy.” Thus, “the
            provisions of the Administrative Agency Law[, 2 Pa.C.S.
            §§ 501-508, 701-704,] requiring an evidentiary hearing do
            not apply.” Sherry, 20 A.3d at 519 . . . .

City of Harrisburg v. Prince, 288 A.3d 559, 578 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (emphasis
added).

            The process due in this statutory scheme is notice and an
            opportunity to present evidence to the fact-finder.
            Wishnefsky v. [Pa.] Dep’t of Corr., 144 A.3d 290 (Pa.
            Cmwlth. 2016). A requester has no right to cross-examine
            those who may oppose access to the requested records.
            Sherry. Further, it is well[ ]established that [the] OOR is
            not required to hold a hearing, as a decision to hold a

                                         6
            hearing is a matter of discretion. Section 1102(a) of the
            RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1102(a)[.]

UnitedHealthcare of Pa., Inc. v. Baron, 171 A.3d 943, 952 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).
“Generally, a requester’s due process rights are not violated when [the] OOR
does not allow a requester to challenge or respond to submissions of direct
interest participants.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Nguyen Vu v. Pa. Bd. of Prob.
& Parole, 200 A.3d 627 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). Thus, even if Jensen’s assertion that
he did not receive the Department’s position statement and the Filkosky Attestation
is true, the OOR did not deny Jensen due process because Jensen did not have a due
process right to respond thereto. Accordingly, Jensen’s argument that the OOR erred
by relying on the Department’s response and affidavit, and denied him due process
by denying Jensen an opportunity to respond is meritless.
            Jensen next asserts that the OOR erred by crediting and relying on the
Department’s conclusory and generalized affidavit and failing to inquire who in the
Commonwealth would have responsive records. However, this Court has explained
that “[a]n agency may meet its burden [of proving a good faith search] through an
unsworn attestation or a sworn affidavit.” Glob. Tel*Link Corp. v. Wright, 147 A.3d
978, 980 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting W. Chester Univ. of Pa. v. Schackner, 124
A.3d 382, 393 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)). “The affidavits [demonstrating an agency’s
good faith search] must be detailed, nonconclusory, and submitted in good
faith. . . . Absent evidence of bad faith, the veracity of an agency’s submissions
explaining reasons for nondisclosure should not be questioned.” McGowan, 103
A.3d at 381 (quoting Scolforo, 65 A.3d at 1103 (citation omitted)).
            “As part of a good faith search, [an agency’s] open records officer has
a duty to advise all custodians of potentially responsive records about the request,
and to obtain all potentially responsive records from those in possession.”
Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 185 A.3d 1161, 1171-72 (Pa.

                                         7
Cmwlth. 2018) (Uniontown Newspapers I), aff’d, 243 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2020)
(Uniontown Newspapers II).        In Uniontown Newspapers II, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court agreed that “[a] good faith response – either to produce records or
assert an exemption – cannot occur absent a good faith search, followed by collection
and review of responsive records, so an agency has actual knowledge about the
contents of the relevant documents.” Id. at 28-29 (quotation marks omitted). The
Uniontown Newspapers II Court “reject[ed] [the Department’s] contention [that] the
open records officer fulfills his or her obligation simply by relying on the
representations of others without inquiring as to what investigation was made and
without reviewing the records upon which the individual responding to the request
relied.” Id. at 28.
             In the instant matter, the OOR reviewed the Filkosky Attestation and
concluded that it was sufficiently detailed and reflected the Department’s good faith
search for the records Jensen requested. In fact, the Filkosky Attestation clearly
describes the efforts Filkosky took to determine whether the requested information
exists and his basis for concluding that it does not exist. Specifically, Filkosky twice
approached the Director of the Department’s Bureau of Administration who
confirmed that “there is no one ‘custodial account’ containing the combined
resources of the Department for all of its inmates, and therefore the entries for
December 2021 for that account that does not exist likewise do not exist.” C.R. Item
4 at 7. This Court agrees that the Filkosky Attestation is sufficiently detailed to
support the Department’s denial. Thus, Jensen’s argument fails.
             Jensen also contends that the OOR erred by failing to find that the
Department acted in bad faith, and denied the Request based on the Department’s
representations that it contacted a department that would not possess such records.
             In the RTKL context, “bad faith” does not require a
             showing of fraud or corruption. The lack of good faith

                                           8
              compliance with the RTKL and an abnegation of
              mandatory duties under its provisions rise to the level of
              bad faith. [Off. Of the Dist. Att’y of Phila. v. Bagwell, 155
              A.3d 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)] (affirming trial court’s
              award of $500[.00] civil penalty for bad faith);
              Chambersburg Area Sch. Dist. v. Dorsey, 97 A.3d 1281
              (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (agency failure to review responsive
              records was grounds from which fact-finder could discern
              bad faith); Staub v. City of Wilkes-Barre (Pa. Cmwlth.
              [No. 2140 C.D. 2012], filed [Oct. 3,] 2013) . . . (affirming
              attorney fee award for agency failure to confer with
              contractor before responding to request).[6] The RTKL
              reserves bad faith determinations for disposition by
              Chapter 13 [c]ourts [(i.e., the Commonwealth Court and
              county common pleas courts)].
              The RTKL requires an agency to make a good faith effort
              to find and obtain responsive records before denying
              access. “[A]n agency [may not] avoid disclosing existing
              public records by claiming, in the absence of a detailed
              search, that it does not know where the documents are.”
              Pa. State Police v. McGill, 83 A.3d 476, 481 (Pa. Cmwlth.
              2014) (emphasis added). Where an agency did not
              perform a search of its records under the RTKL until the
              matter was [i]n litigation, the agency denied access in
              willful disregard of the public’s right to public records.
              Parsons v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assist. Agency (PHEAA), 910
              A.2d 177 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (en banc) . . . (agency failure to
              review records before a hearing on denial showed willful
              violation of former [RTKL]).
              A requester bears the burden of proving an agency
              committed bad faith. Evidence of bad faith is required.
              After-discovered records are a type of evidence from
              which a court may discern bad faith. Evidence of an
              agency’s failure to perform its mandatory duties, including
              a failure to search its records prior to a denial of access,
              may suffice.

Uniontown Newspapers I, 185 A.3d at 1170-71 (citations and footnote omitted).

       6
        Unreported decisions of this Court, while not binding, may be cited for their persuasive
value. Section 414(a) of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Commonwealth Court, 210 Pa.
Code § 69.414(a).
                                               9
                With respect to Jensen’s bad faith allegations, the OOR concluded:
                Here, the evidence shows that the Department assessed
                and processed the Request and issued its final response to
                [Jensen]. Further, on appeal, the Department proved that
                it conducted a good faith search by consulting relevant
                Department personnel to confirm that it does not have
                responsive records in its possession, custody or control.

C.R. Item 5 at 7. This Court agrees. The Filkosky Attestation is detailed and
nonconclusory. There is no record evidence of bad faith. Absent such evidence, this
Court cannot question the veracity of the Department’s submissions explaining its
reasons for nondisclosure. See McGowan. Thus, the OOR did not err by crediting
and relying on the Filkosky Attestation, and Jensen’s bad faith allegations are
without merit.
                Finally, Jensen argues in his brief that his Request was sufficiently
specific.7 However, Jensen did not raise that issue in his Statement of Questions

         7
             This Court has explained:
                Where a requester seeks to gain access to information under the
                RTKL, Section 703 of the RTKL puts the initial burden on the
                requester to provide a written request that “should identify or
                describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to enable the
                agency to ascertain which records are being requested and shall
                include the name and address to which the agency should address its
                response.” 65 P.S. § 67.703; Mollick [v. Twp. of Worcester], 32
                A.3d [859,] 871 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2011)]. In determining whether a
                request is sufficiently specific, an agency should rely on the
                common meaning of words and phrases, be mindful of the remedial
                purpose of the RTKL, and construe the specificity of the request in
                the context of the request, rather than envisioning everything the
                request might conceivably encompass. P[a.] State Police v. Off[.]
                of Open Rec[s.], 995 A.2d 515, 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). The fact
                that a request is burdensome will not, in and of itself, deem the
                request to be overbroad. Dep[’t] of Env[’t] Prot[.] v. Legere, 50
                A.3d 260, 265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
Bagwell, 155 A.3d at 1142-43 (emphasis added).

                                                 10
Involved, and it is not fairly suggested thereby. Accordingly, Jensen waived that
issue. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in
the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”).8

               “When considering a challenge to the specificity of a request under
               Section 703 of the RTKL, this Court employs a three-part balancing
               test[.]” Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d
               1121, 1124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). The test examines “the extent to
               which the request sets forth[:] (1) the subject matter of the request;
               (2) the scope of the documents sought; and (3) the timeframe for
               which records are sought.” Id. “The subject matter of the request
               must identify ‘the transaction or activity’ of the agency for which
               the record is sought[]” and “should provide a context to narrow the
               search.” Id. at 1125 (quoting Section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §
               67.102). In terms of scope, the request “must identify ‘a discrete
               group of documents, either by type . . . or by recipient.’” [Pittsburgh
               Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d at 1125] (quoting Carey v. [Pa.] Dep’t of
               Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)). Lastly, “[t]he
               timeframe of the request should identify a finite period of time for
               which records are sought.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d at
               1126; see also . . . Bagwell, 155 A.3d [at] 1145 . . . (A request is
               sufficiently specific where it enumerates a “clearly[-]defined
               universe of documents.”); Askew v. Pa. Off[.] of the Governor, 65
               A.3d 989, 992 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (A request lacks specificity
               where “it is open-ended in terms of a timeframe[ and] overly broad
               in the scope of documents sought[.]”).
Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173, 179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (footnote omitted).
A requester’s request lacks specificity where “it necessitates traditional legal research and analysis,
not only to ascertain that which is being requested, but also to determine whether a particular law
and/or document possesses the legal significance necessary to make it responsive to the request.”
Askew, 65 A.3d at 994. Further, this Court has explained that an RTKL request is insufficiently
specific where it requires an agency to review files and make judgments regarding “the relation of
the documents to the specific request.” Legere, 50 A.3d at 264; see also Dep’t of Corr. v. St.
Hilaire, 128 A.3d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).
        8
          Notwithstanding, if this Court were to consider this issue, the matter is moot. According
to the Filkosky Attestation, in a subsequent conversation with the Director of the Department’s
Bureau of Administration, the Director determined that the confusion surrounding Jensen’s
Request arose from the fact that Jensen sought a document that does not exist. Thus, even
assuming that Jensen’s Request was sufficiently specific, based on the record, there is simply no
such responsive document the Department can produce.

                                                 11
            For all of the above reasons, the OOR’s Final Determination is
affirmed.

                                  _________________________________
                                  ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

                                    12
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Philip Jensen,                            :
                  Petitioner              :
                                          :
            v.                            :
                                          :
Pennsylvania Department of                :
Corrections (Office of Open Records),     :   No. 317 C.D. 2023
                   Respondent             :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2024, the Office of Open Records’
March 17, 2023 Final Determination is affirmed.

                                        _________________________________
                                        ANNE E. COVEY, Judge