OOR Confirms that Requesters Can Seek the Same Records Twice Under the RTKL

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
Contact

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Previously, this blog addressed how the Office of Open Records, in Steinheiser v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, AP 2019-1877 (Nov. 6, 2019), confirmed that local agencies are not required to provide original documents to a requester.  That case also confirmed that, as interpreted by the OOR and courts, a request is not impermissibly disruptive under Section 506(a) of the RTKL if it is made only twice.

In Steinheiser, the Requester sought the actual business card of SEPTA’s Open Records Officer.  The OOR previously found that the business card was a public record and SEPTA provided him with a scanned copy of the card.  In this case, SEPTA argued that the Request was disruptive and burdensome because the Requester had received the card twice and still appealed.

Section 506(a) of the RTKL states that “[a]n agency may deny a requester access to a record if the requester has made repeated requests for that same record and the repeated requests have placed an unreasonable burden on the agency.” 65 P.S. § 67.506(a)(1).

Under this section an agency must demonstrate that: (1) the requester has made repeated requests for the same records; and (2) the repeated requests have placed an unreasonable burden on the agency. Office of the Governor v. Bari, 20 A.3d 634, 645 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).  In Mezzacappa v. West Easton Borough, AP 2012-0992, the OOR held that a request must be repeated more than once to constitute a “repeated request” for purposes of 65 P.S. § 67.506(a).   The OOR stated: “Because the Borough has only established that the Requester has made one repeated request, rather than multiple ‘repeated requests,’ the OOR finds that the Request was not disruptive.”  This decision was upheld on appeal Borough of West Easton v. Mezzacappa, No. C-48-CV-2012- 7973 (North. Com. P1. Jan. 9, 2013) (“[A] request is not disruptive when a requester [seeks] the same records only twice”), aff’d 74 A.3d 417 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

Accordingly, local agencies should not deny a request simply because the Requester has made the same Request once before.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Tucker Arensberg, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
Contact
more
less

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide