Miller v. Cnty. of Ctr.

• Decision Date: 15 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 857 C.D. 2015,No. 856 C.D. 2015 ,856 C.D. 2015
• Citation: 135 A.3d 233
• Parties: Stacy Parks MILLER, District Attorney v. COUNTY OF CENTRE, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

135 A.3d 233

Stacy Parks MILLER, District Attorney

v.COUNTY OF CENTRE, Appellant.

No. 856 C.D. 2015

No. 857 C.D. 2015

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Feb. 10, 2016.

Decided March 15, 2016.

Mary Lou Maierhofer, Hollidaysburg, and Craig J. Staudenmaier, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Bruce L. Castor, Jr., Ardmore, for appellee.

BEFORE: MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge, ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, and MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge.

OPINION BY Judge ROBERT SIMPSON

.

In these consolidated appeals, the County of Centre (County) appeals from two orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County (trial court)¹ granting preliminary injunctive relief to County District Attorney (DA) Stacy Parks Miller. Specifically, the trial court enjoined the County from responding to Right–to–Know Law (RTKL)² requests for “judicial records” related to the DA. The County argues DA records are not “judicial” because the office of the DA is not a judicial agency. Further, the County contends the relief is overbroad in that it prohibits responses to RTKL requests seeking correspondence of a local agency regardless of subject matter. Upon review, we reverse both orders.

I. Background

DA Miller filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief, later amended to enjoin the County from responding to RTKL requests seeking records related to her or to her office (DA's Office). The litigation stems from the County's response to RTKL requests for telephone usage records of the DA and certain judges, including Judge Jonathan D. Grine (Grine) and Magisterial District Judge (MDJ) Kelley Gillette–Walker (Gillette–Walker) (collectively, the Judges). The Judges also sought an injunction barring the County from responding to RTKL requests, which the trial court granted (Judicial Cases).³ The County responded to the requests without notifying or consulting the Judges. In granting access, the County released parts of the Judges' telephone numbers and created a document that tracked the usage between the DA and the Judges on a color-coded spreadsheet. Although the response disclosed that a communication between the DA's and the Judges' telephone numbers occurred, it did not reveal the content of the communications.

In May, 2015, after hearing the Judicial Cases, the trial court held a hearing on the DA's complaint. The trial court subsequently incorporated the record from the Judicial Cases into the record here. As in the Judicial Cases, the County rationalized that it did not need to consult the DA's Office before responding to the RTKL request because the responsive records were invoices from Verizon. The County contracts with Verizon for cellular telephone service, and it pays the invoices. Thus, the County had access to the invoices showing the usage of the specified individuals, including the telephone numbers of the individuals with whom they communicated.

The DA countered that the County lacked the authority to respond to RTKL requests for her records because the DA's Office is a judicial agency. The DA asserted that records documenting activity of a judicial agency are “judicial records” inaccessible under the RTKL.

The trial court entered an order on May 13, 2015, based on its decision in the Judicial Cases (May 13th Order). The May 13th Order provides: “... the [County] is enjoined from making any response to any request made pursuant to the [RTKL] for judicial records relating to [the DA]. The [County] shall direct any requests received to the appropriate official, who shall then respond in accord with the [RTKL.]” Notice of Appeal (Dkt. 856 C.D. 2015), Ex. A (emphasis added). From the bench, the trial court stated: “... I have already made a decision in this case—in the [Judicial Cases]—and I have stated my position in writing, and I'm certainly not going to change my opinion in this case.” Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 164a.

To clarify the parameters of the term “judicial records,” and whether certain RTKL requests fell within the injunction, the parties participated in a conference call. See Supplemental Record (S.R.), Ex. 2, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 9/1/15, at 5. As a result, the trial court later expanded the preliminary injunction on May 19, 2015 (May 19th Order), as follows: “the [County] is prohibited from producing in response to [RTKL] requests any emails or letters to or from the [DA's Office].” Notice of Appeal (Dkt. 857 C.D. 2015), Ex. A.

The County filed a notice of appeal as to each order. This Court consolidated the appeals (collectively, the DA Appeal). The County filed a motion to strike portions of the DA's brief, which this Court denied. This Court also denied the County's motion to consolidate the DA Appeal with the appeal of the Judicial Cases. After briefing and oral argument, the matter is ready for disposition.

II. Discussion

On appeal,⁴ the County argues the trial court erred in extending the preliminary injunction issued in the Judicial Cases to the DA because the DA's Office is not a “judicial agency” under the RTKL. As to the May 19th Order, the County also claims the preliminary injunction is overbroad.

The DA counters the trial court did not err because the DA and her staff qualify as a judicial agency. Essentially, the DA asserts the DA and her staff are employees of the judiciary; accordingly, the County lacks jurisdiction as a local agency to respond to RTKL requests pertaining to its activities. In addition, as to the May 19th Order, the DA contends most of its correspondence pertains to the criminal investigations. As a result, it is protected by the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 9101

–9183.

The May 13th Order is based on the trial court's conclusion that the DA's Office is a judicial agency. However, the May 19th Order implicates the content of the records requested. We will analyze the orders separately.

A. May 13th Order (Judicial Agency)

Pursuant to the RTKL, a “judicial agency” is defined as, “[a] court of the Commonwealth or any other entity or office of the unified judicial system.” Section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102

. The “unified judicial system” (UJS) is defined in Section 102 of the Judicial Code as “the [UJS] existing under section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and section 301 (relating to [UJS] ).” 42 Pa.C.S. § 102.

The Pennsylvania Constitution provides:

The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a [UJS] consisting of the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court, courts of common pleas, community courts, municipal and traffic courts in the City of Philadelphia, such other courts as may be provided by law.... All courts and justices of the peace and their jurisdiction shall be in this [UJS].

Pa. Const. art. V, § 1

; see Section 301 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 301 (the UJS consists of “all courts and magisterial district judges and their jurisdiction....”).

There is no dispute that the DA's Office is not a court. Nonetheless, the DA argues the trial court properly enjoined the County from responding to RTKL requests related to the DA's Office because district attorneys qualify as “judicial” personnel. Predicated on that conclusion, the DA asserts any records relating to activities of judicial personnel are beyond the County's jurisdiction. She contends records of the DA's Office are only subject to the RTKL insofar as the statute governs judicial agencies, whose disclosure is limited to “financial records.”⁵

In support, the DA relies on Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna Cnty. v. Office of Open Records (Lackawanna County CCP), 2 A.3d 810 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010)

. The DA argues Lackawanna County CCP is dispositive because the DA's Office is comprised of personnel of a judicial agency. We disagree.

In Lackawanna County CCP, the litigation involved an original jurisdiction action filed by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) seeking declaratory relief. Specifically, AOPC argued the Office of Open Records (OOR) lacked jurisdiction to compel Lackawanna County to respond to a RTKL request for emails involving the Director of the County's Domestic Relations Office (Director). The genesis of the litigation was a requester's appeal from Lackawanna County's response to the RTKL request, stating that the records were “of the judiciary” because the emails were generated by a court employee. Id. at 812

.

Importantly, Lackawanna County submitted an affidavit attesting to the Director's status as a court employee. OOR rejected the affidavit, and it concluded the fact that the County paid the Director rendered him a County employee. As a result, the records were “of” the County.⁶ Further, OOR determined the emails were housed on county-provided computers, and thus were accessible to the County. Ultimately, OOR directed Lackawanna County to disclose the emails.

In order to enjoin disclosure, AOPC sought relief from this Court. We granted AOPC's motion for summary relief, holding that the Director was a court-supervised employee regardless of the source of his salary. Critical to our holding was the determination that “any record produced by a judicial employee is a record of a judicial agency.” Id. at 813. Because the Judicial Code required creation of a domestic relations office, “consist[ing] of such ... other staff of the court as shall be assigned thereto,” 42 Pa.C.S. § 961

, we concluded the Director was a judicial employee. Thus, the Director's status as a judicial employee was essential to the holding that OOR lacked authority to direct disclosure of records of a judicial agency. Section 503(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.503(a) (OOR hears appeals from only Commonwealth and local agencies).

The DA makes a similar argument here. However, the material facts in this case differ from those in Lackawanna County CCP. Significantly, in contrast to the Director of the Domestic Relations Office, employees and elected officials of the DA's office are not “judicial...