Segelbaum v. York Cnty.

1

Dylan Segelbaum and The York Daily Record, Appellants v. York County

No. 1075 C.D. 2022

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

October 30, 2024

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: July 5, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

Dylan Segelbaum and The York Daily Record (collectively Requesters) appeal the order issued by the Court of Common Pleas of York County (trial court) on September 6, 2022 which dismissed as moot an appeal filed by York County (the County) in this Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)^[1] matter. While we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the County has fulfilled Requesters' RTKL request as filed, we further conclude that its disposition was flawed and, therefore, vacate the trial court's order and remand with instructions that it reverse the final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR).

I. BACKGROUND^[2]

On November 12, 2021, Requesters requested a copy of the curriculum vitae (CV or resume) of Joseph Garcia.^[3] The County initially denied the request on the ground that it did not possess responsive records.

Requesters timely appealed to the OOR. Before the OOR, the County maintained that it did not possess Mr. Garcia's CV. However, the County also acknowledged that it possessed a 128-page document titled, "Verified CV of STL Garcia" (Supporting Documentation), that compiled numerous photographs, letters of reference, and training certificates. The OOR agreed with Requesters' contention that this document was responsive and directed its provision.

The County timely appealed this final determination to the trial court. During the pendency of its appeal, the County discovered a password-protected, electronic copy of Mr. Garcia's CV that was no longer accessible. Upon request, Mr. Garcia provided another copy to the County, which then forwarded a lightly redacted version of this eight-page document to Requesters.

Following a hearing and briefing by the parties, the trial court rejected the OOR's determination. The court did not credit Requesters' argument that the actual title of the Supporting Documentation, i.e., "Verified CV of STL Garcia," alone established that it was responsive. Defining a CV or resume as a short account of one's career and qualifications, the trial court found that Mr. Garcia's resume was responsive to the request but that the Supporting Documentation was not. Thus, because the County had provided the only responsive document in its possession, the trial court concluded that Requesters were due no further relief and that the County's appeal was moot. In so doing, the trial court stressed that it had not considered the parties' arguments addressing whether the Supporting Documentation was a public record subject to provision under the RTKL. Rather, according to the trial court, it had simply determined that the Supporting Documentation was not sought in the original request under review.

Requesters then timely appealed to this Court.

II. ISSUES

Requesters raise three issues for our review, reordered for ease of disposition. First, Requesters assert that the trial court erred in failing to order the County to produce the Supporting Documentation. Requesters' Br. at 4. Second, Requesters contend that the County has acted in bad faith by withholding the Supporting Documentation.^[4] Id. at 29. Third, according to Requesters, the trial court erred in dismissing the County's appeal as moot. Id.

III. DISCUSSION^[5]

A. Scope of Request

Requesters assert that the Supporting Documentation falls within the scope of their request and should be produced by the County. See Requesters' Br. at 13-17. According to Requesters, this document is not only "labeled" a CV but also contains information typically found in a CV. Id. at 14. Moreover, Requesters suggest, the County relied on this information just as it would any other CV as proof of Mr. Garcia's qualifications and experience. See id. at 16; Requesters' Reply Br. at 7 (suggesting the document reassured County officials of Mr. Garcia's qualifications). Requesters therefore reject the trial court's focus on the length of the document and suggest that, under any reasonable interpretation of their request, the Supporting Documentation is a CV. See Requester's Br. at 14-17.^[6]

Under the RTKL, information is subject to disclosure if it is a "public record." Section 301(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.301(a). The RTKL is "remedial legislation designed 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 . . . ." Bowling v. Off. of Open Recs., 990 A.2d 813, 824 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), aff'd, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013). We must liberally construe its provisions to effectuate this purpose. Levy v. Senate of Pa., 65 A.3d 361, 381 (Pa. 2013).

Upon request, an agency is required to disclose information falling within the RTKL's broad definition of "record." Hodges v. Pa. Dep't of Health, 29 A.3d 1190, 1192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011); see Section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102.^[7] However, "the RTKL is not a forum for the public to demand answers to specifically posed questions to either a Commonwealth or local agency." Walker v. Pa. Ins. Dep't (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1485 C.D. 2011, filed June 15, 2012), slip op. at 12; accord Gingrich v. Pa. Game Comm'n (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1254 C.D. 2011, filed Jan. 12, 2012), slip op. at 11 (rejecting a requester's argument that the RTKL requires an agency to research the answers to questions).^[8]

An agency may interpret a request, provided its interpretation is reasonable and construed within the context of the request. See In re Melamed, 287 A.3d 491, 499 n.15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (citations omitted); United Healthcare of Pa., Inc. v. Dep't of Hum. Servs. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 824 C.D. 2017, filed May 31, 2018), 2018 WL 2436334 (unreported) (assessing agency's interpretation of request). Further, once an RTKL request is submitted, a requester is not permitted to expand or modify the request on appeal. See Smith Butz, LLC v. Pa. Dep't of Env't Prot., 142 A.3d 941, 945 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). "An agency is only required . . . to forward and provide the records which are requested." Hodges, 29 A.3d at 1193 (emphasis in original).

In their original request, Requesters sought "[a] copy of the [CV] for Joseph Garcia, the 'senior team leader' of CSAU-1 LLC, a 'corrections special operations' organization based in Greenville, South Carolina." OOR Certified R. (C.R.), Ex. 1 (Request, 11/12/21). Interpreting this request, the County declined to provide the Supporting Documentation after concluding that its contents were not responsive to the request. See OOR C.R., Ex. 7 (Cnty. Submission, 1/25/22, at 2). According to the County, "[d]espite the title of the cover page, the attached documents are not a CV." Id.

Thus, we must consider whether the County's interpretation of this request was reasonable. See Melamed, 287 A.3d at 499 n.15. In other words, we consider whether it was appropriate for the County to deny access to the Supporting Documentation as non-responsive or outside the scope of the initial request. For its part, the trial court disagreed with Requesters' principal argument that the title of a document should be determinative. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3-4 (unpaginated). According to the trial court, this flawed approach would undermine the purpose of the RTKL "by allowing an agency to simply title its records in a way which would circumvent the RTKL." Id. at 4.

The trial court also rejected Requesters' assertion that the County relied on this Supporting Documentation as Mr. Garcia's CV or resume. Noting that the RTKL does not define the term curriculum vitae, the trial court looked to a common definition of the term. Id. at 3. The trial court defined "curriculum vitae" as a short account of one's career and qualifications and added "[i]n the current context, we emphasize the requirement that a CV be 'short.'" Id. (quoting Merriam-Webster's online dictionary).^[9] Addressing the argument that the withheld document "contains information typically included in CVs," the court found that the document contained photographs, letters of reference, and training certificates. It then stated "[t]hese are not the types of documents one would expect to see as part of a CV, and 128 pages is certainly not short." Trial Ct. Op. at 3.

We discern no legal error in the trial court's reasoning. While it seems plain that the title of a document may hint at its contents, the trial court properly reasoned that focusing on a document's title alone risks insufficient consideration of a document's substance. We further agree with the trial court's view that the Supporting Documentation is far beyond what is generally accepted as a CV or resume. Here, the Supporting Documentation is quite lengthy and is actually a compilation of dozens of individual documents, including 42 photographs, 41 letters of reference, and 42 training certificates. See Notes of Testimony (N.T.) Hr'g, 7/5/22, at 106. While there may be examples of similarly lengthy and detailed accounts of an individual's accomplishments, they are likely rare and outside the normal convention.^[10]

Finally, we specifically reject Requesters' contention that a CV serves as proof of an individual's qualifications and experience. The CV or resume is a statement or an account of an individual's accomplishments. It is not proof of them. Consider, for example, an applicant who identifies in her CV certain educational accomplishments, such as the dates of her graduation from high school or university.

The CV does not include the applicant's...