City of Harrisburg v. Prince

• Decision Date: 03 January 2023
• Docket Number: 1228 C.D. 2021
• Parties: CITY OF HARRISBURG v. Joshua PRINCE, Esq., Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

288 A.3d 559

CITY OF HARRISBURG

v.Joshua PRINCE, Esq., Appellant

No. 1228 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued September 12, 2022

Decided January 3, 2023

Dillon Harris, Bechtelsville, for Appellant.

Andrew W. Norfleet, Harrisburg, for Appellee City of Harrisburg.

Joshua D. Bonn, Harrisburg, for Appellees John Doe 1, Jane Doe 1, and John Doe 2.

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge, HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER

This case returns to us following remand after the Supreme Court reversed this Court's en banc decision in City of Harrisburg v. Prince , 186 A.3d 544, 548 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (en banc) ( Prince I ), reversed , 656 Pa. 23, 219 A.3d 602 (2019) ( Prince II ). Joshua Prince, Esq. (Appellant) had filed a Right-to-Know Law¹ (RTKL) Request directed toward the City of Harrisburg (City), which sought the names, home addresses, check numbers, and telephone numbers of individuals who contributed to the City Legal Defense Fund (Fund). The purpose of the Fund was to collect donations to help the City pay its insurance deductible and defend its firearm ordinances against legal challenges to the ordinances’ validity. After remand, the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County (common pleas) granted the Objection of John Doe 1 and Jane Doe 1, Objection of John Doe 2, and Objection of John Doe 3 (Objections), ordering the City to disclose "[a]s to each donor on the subject spreadsheet, ... whether the donor [including Objectors] lives in the City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, and/or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," concluding that the privacy interests of John Doe 1 and Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3 (Objectors) outweighed the public interest asserted by Appellant. (Common Pleas Order at 2, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 220a.)

Appellant appeals from common pleas’ order, arguing that common pleas erred because when applying the balancing test articulated by our Supreme Court in Pennsylvania State Education Association v. Department of Community and Economic Development , 637 Pa. 337, 148 A.3d 142 (2016) ( PSEA ), Objectors’ privacy interest in their names and home addresses does not outweigh the public's interest in knowing who is contributing to funding a specific course of government action through their donations.² Also before us are Objectors’ Application for Relief in Nature of Motion to Quash Appeal (Application to Quash) and the City's Motion to Quash (together, Motions). Because we determine that Appellant's appeal was timely and that common pleas properly applied the PSEA balancing test in concluding that Objectors’ privacy interest in their personal information, primarily their names and home addresses, outweighs the public interest in disclosure, we deny the Motions and affirm common pleas’ Order.

I. BACKGROUND

In Prince I , this Court affirmed a decision from common pleas holding that the donor spreadsheet, containing the information sought by Appellant,³ was not a financial record, and, therefore, Section 708(b)(13) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(13)⁴ (donor exception), applied to protect information about the donors, including their names and addresses. Prince I , 186 A.3d at 548. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed. The Court stated that, "although records that would disclose the identity of individual donors are generally exempted from disclosure under the RTKL, if those records may be characterized as financial records," access is required. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the donor spreadsheet was a financial record rendering Section 708(b)(13) inapplicable. The Court remanded the matter so that the PSEA balancing test could be performed to determine whether any of the donors’ personal information was protected by article I, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, PA. CONST. art. I, § 1.⁵ Prince II , 219 A.3d at 605. This Court remanded the matter to common pleas to require the City to notify the third-party donors of the potential disclosure of their information and their right to participate in the proceedings, and for common pleas to conduct the PSEA balancing test as ordered by the Supreme Court.

The City provided notice to the third-party donors, and Objectors filed Objections to the public disclosure of their names, home addresses, check numbers, and telephone numbers. Therein, Objectors averred that disclosure of their personal information had the potential to harm their privacy, safety, and reputational interests and that there was no public interest served by the disclosure of their personal information. Based on the nature of the claims and need to remain anonymous, Objectors’ counsel verified the facts supporting the potential harm to which Objectors would be exposed if their personal information was disclosed to the public. Objectors attached documentary evidence to support their position, including an internet blog authored by Appellant in which he asserts that the donors to the Fund were committing crimes, and news clippings and criminal court filings reflecting the current state of the political environment, particularly around the issue of gun control. (Exhibits (Exs.) A-C to Objections of John Doe 1 and Jane Doe 1, R.R. at 27a, 32a, 36a.)⁶

In response to the Objections, Appellant filed an Answer, asserting that he was without sufficient information and knowledge to form a belief about the truth of Objectors’ allegations based on the absence of verifications signed by Objectors’ themselves. (Appellant's Answer to Objections ¶¶ 4-5, 14, 30-32, 35, 37-44, 47-49, 51, R.R. at 98a-100a, 102a-06a.) The City filed a Brief in Support of the Objections, arguing, in essence, that because Objectors have a privacy right in their personal information, and that privacy right outweighs the public's interest in disclosure, common pleas should sustain the Objections. (See City's Brief (Br.) in Support of Objections, R.R. at 141a.)

Common pleas heard oral argument on the Objections on September 20, 2021. At oral argument, the following exchange occurred between Appellant's counsel and common pleas:

Appellant's Counsel: And so the public interest that we've articulated, or tried to articulate anyway, is that we believe the public has an interest in knowing who is supporting the City's defense fund and, you know, whether or not -- particularly whether or not those individuals reside in Pennsylvania and the City of Harrisburg.

THE COURT: Well, okay. That's interesting. What if the City provided generally where they live, whether they're a city resident, a resident of Dauphin County, a resident of Pennsylvania, or a resident of Cumberland County? What if the City provided a general area where the donors lived?

Appellant's Counsel: And I think to that point, Your Honor, we had expressed in our briefing that perhaps as an alternative we are willing to split that proverbial baby, that would be something that's acceptable that we would feel would meet that public interest inasmuch as it tells us the general area that person's from.

I would -- I would kind of push Your Honor towards at least the city and the state; however, if Your Honor felt that that perhaps was too much and a more general at least county in the state, I think that might be something that would be acceptable for the public and that public interest of seeing where that money is coming from, in state and out of state.

(Transcript of Oral Argument at 3-4, R.R. at 191a-92a.) On September 30, 2021, common pleas granted the Objections stating:

In the instant matter, the public interest identified by [Appellant] is the public's interest in knowing whether the individuals who contributed to the City's legal defense fund reside in the City or if non-residents of the Commonwealth are attempting to influence Pennsylvania politics. [Appellant's] counsel agrees that this public interest may be served by providing less private information for each of the donors, such as a general indication as to whether each donor resides in the City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, and/or the State of Pennsylvania.

Since [Appellant's] counsel agrees that the actual names, addresses, and phone numbers of the donors is not necessary to accomplish the stated public purpose, we hereby GRANT the Objections .... Furthermore, we find that [the City] should provide the following information to [Appellant] ... : As to each donor on the subject spreadsheet, [the City] should indicate whether the donor lives in the City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, and/or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. No other information needs to be produced.

(Common Pleas Order at 2.) Citing common pleas’ reliance on the alleged agreement of counsel, Appellant submitted an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (Emergency Motion) asserting that his counsel "had no recollection of agreeing to such, nor [had] permission to agree to such from [Appellant]." (R.R. at 216a.) Appellant further asserted that the transcript of the hearing "does not show where the request to reveal the names of the donors to the Fund was waived or otherwise agreed to as unnecessary." (Id. at 217a.) Alternatively, Appellant argued that even assuming arguendo that the exchange between common pleas and his counsel was an agreement, it "was not his [counsel's] understanding during the hearing that he was agreeing to the non-disclosure of the names, as [he] never specifically stated such and [Appellant] never agreed or authorized him to take such a position." (Id. at 217a-18a.) Common pleas denied the Emergency Motion on October 27, 2021, stating the court "would have granted the Objections even without [the] statement from [Appellant]’s counsel" because "[Appellant] did not provide any evidence that knowledge of the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the subject donors was necessary to accomplish the stated public purpose." (Common Pleas’ Supplemental (Suppl.) Order at 1.) To comply...