Mission Pa., LLC v. McKelvey
| Decision Date | 04 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 185-190 C.D. 2018,s. 185-190 C.D. 2018 |
| Parties | MISSION PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, Petitioner v. Wallace MCKELVEY and PennLive and The Patriot-News, Respondents Terrapin Investment Fund 1, LLC, Petitioner v. Wallace McKelvey and PennLive and The Patriot-News, and The Pennsylvania Department of Health, Respondents SMPD Manufacturing, LLC and SMPB Retail, LLC, Petitioners v. Wallace McKelvey, PennLive and The Patriot-News, Respondents Cresco Yeltrah, LLC, Petitioner v. Wallace McKelvey, PennLive and the Patriot-News, Respondents Pennsylvania Department of Health, Petitioner v. Wallace McKelvey and PennLive, Respondents KW Ventures Holdings, LLC, Petitioner v. Wallace McKelvey and Pennlive and the Patriot-News, Respondents |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
William G. Roark, Lansdale, for designated petitioner Mission Pennsylvania, LLC.
Jonathan D. Koltash, Senior Counsel, Harrisburg, for designated petitioner Pennsylvania Department of Health.
Clifford B. Levine, Pittsburgh, for designated petitioner Terrapin Investment Fund 1, LLC.
Joshua D. Bonn, Harrisburg, for respondents Wallace McKelvey, PennLive, and The Patriot-News.
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge, HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON
These consolidated appeals arising from an access dispute under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 involve complex procedural and substantive questions, including the public nature of applications under the Medical Marijuana Act (Act).2 We are also presented with requests to supplement the record developed before the Office of Open Records (OOR), thus enlisting this Court's fact-finding functions.
The Department of Health (DOH) and five successful applicants for medical marijuana grower/processor or dispensary permits (collectively, Permittees),3 challenge OOR's final determination, granting in part and denying in part the request of Wallace McKelvey, PennLive and The Patriot-News (collectively, Requester) seeking unredacted copies of their six permit applications pursuant to the RTKL. OOR directed DOH to disclose Permittees' applications with minimal redaction of personal identifiers and proven trade secrets.
We decline to supplement the record. On the record developed below, we reverse OOR's final determination in part to allow redaction of specified facility and systems security information, and we affirm in all other respects.
The General Assembly enacted the Act, effective as of May 17, 2016, to establish a framework for legalization of medical marijuana in the Commonwealth. DOH is the Commonwealth agency responsible for administering the Act, including promulgating temporary regulations necessary to perform this function. Section 301 of the Act, 35 P.S. § 10231.301 ; Section 1107 of the Act, 35 P.S. § 10231.1107. Attendant to this authority, DOH promulgated temporary regulations and established an application process for businesses seeking permission to operate as medical marijuana organizations. See 28 Pa. Code §§ 1131.1 – 1191.33.
Section 302(b) of the Act (relating to public disclosure) provides that applications "are public records and shall be subject to the [RTKL]." 35 P.S. § 10231.302(b). DOH's temporary regulation as to the same subject mirrors the Act by listing applications as "public records ... subject to disclosure under the [RTKL] ...." 28 Pa. Code § 1141.22 (Temporary Regulation). However, the Temporary Regulation states: "the following information is considered confidential, is not subject to the [RTKL], and will not otherwise be released ... unless pursuant to court order ... information regarding the physical features of, and security measures installed in, a facility." 28 Pa. Code § 1141.22(b)(9) (emphasis added).
Further, in the application instructions, DOH advised all applicants to submit redacted and unredacted copies of their applications with the understanding that redacted copies would be posted on its public website. Although the instructions state all submissions would be subject to disclosure under the RTKL, they also quote the Temporary Regulation which extended protection to "information regarding physical features of and security measures installed in a facility, information in the electronic tracking system" and other information subject to protection by the RTKL or as proprietary under another law. Reproduced Record4 (R.R.) at 46a.
DOH received dozens of applications comprised of thousands of pages, both grower/processor (GP) applications and dispensary (DS) applications. DOH received all applications by March 2017. In late June 2017, DOH announced the award of 12 GP permits and 27 DS permits, including those of Permittees.
In May 2017, Requester initially sought all applications for GP permits and all successful applications for DS permits (Request). In July, DOH denied the Request in part, referring Requester to the redacted copies of GP applications posted on its website, and denying access to DS applications that were not posted yet. DOH's denial grounds included the right to privacy in personal information as well as RTKL exceptions contained in Section 708(b), 65 P.S. § 67.708(b), as to personal identifiers, trade secrets and confidential proprietary information, and records revealing infrastructure or computer security information. DOH explained that its redactions, as opposed to Permittees' redactions it allowed, were marked as "DOH redacted."
Requester appealed to OOR only as to Permittees' six applications, both GP and DS applications from Cresco, the GP application from Terrapin, and DS applications from KW Ventures, Mission and Harvest (collectively, Applications). Requester asserted DOH lacked a legal basis for its redactions, emphasizing the disparity of redaction among Permittees. It argued the Applications were public records as a matter of law under the Act. Requester also noted the legislative intent and public interest in disclosure of the redacted information. See Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 1 (Verified Appeal, Requester Mem. at 4-5, 9-10).
OOR requested evidence and directed DOH to notify third parties under Section 1101(c) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1101(c). Once notified, all Permittees asked to participate, submitting argument in support. Cresco also submitted an affidavit of its General Counsel John Figone (Figone Affidavit), and Harvest and Terrapin submitted unverified exemption logs.
In its position statement, DOH admitted to some improper redaction.5 C.R., Item No. 4 (August Submission, at 3); R.R. at 37a. DOH also submitted an affidavit of Program Director John Collins generally describing the varied redactions (Director Affidavit). R.R. at 48a-49a. It contained a citation to DOH's Temporary Regulation, 28 Pa. Code § 1141.22(b)(9), and a general reference to the RTKL.
Director explained DOH's redaction process, attesting DOH only redacted as follows: information marked as confidential proprietary by Permittees if not otherwise redacted; personal and financial information; and information related to building and infrastructure security. Director did not connect these redactions to specific parts of the Applications or differentiate between Permittees' Applications. He also alleged no harm related to disclosure. Nonetheless, DOH redacted entire parts of the Applications including: Section 10 (security/surveillance); Section 11C (transport plans); Section 12B (storage plans); Section 14C (inventory management); Section 15 of the DS and Section 16B of the GP applications (diversion prevention); Section 15B of the GP application (waste disposal); and Attachment D (site and facility plans) of both GP and DS applications. R.R. at 43a.
Significantly, DOH did not review any of the redacted material before preparing its August Submission. Instead, DOH reviewed the already redacted applications, relying on Permittees' redactions, as evinced by the Director Affidavit. DOH claimed it could not review the unredacted Applications based on the volume of records initially sought in the Request.
Realizing that DOH did not review the Applications in unredacted form before asserting exemptions, in September 2017, OOR stayed the matter to allow DOH to evaluate the propriety of Permittees' redactions, to assert any applicable exemptions and to submit supporting evidence. R.R. at 72a-84a (September Opinion). OOR asked DOH to estimate the time for reviewing the Applications, and accepted DOH's verified estimate of 60 days. See R.R. at 95a-98a (DOH Estimate).
Requester sought reconsideration of the stay because only "2,844 pages" remained at issue, and because the stay allowed DOH a second opportunity to support exceptions asserted months before. R.R. at 97a (quoting DOH). OOR denied reconsideration.
DOH submitted its response early, noting it kept Permittees' redactions for confidential proprietary/trade secrets and security information. R.R. at 104a-37a (November Submission). Specifically, DOH represented it:
lifted clearly improper redactions ... maintained [Permittees'] redactions that were proper and appropriately cited ... [and] redactions that may not have been properly cited, but were clearly exempt under another subsection. [It] further maintained redactions where [Permittees] asserted confidential proprietary, trade secret or personal safety and security exemptions, as [DOH] is unable to stand in the shoes of the individual or entity claiming such exemptions. Rather, [DOH] defers to the OOR's determination as to the propriety of these redactions.
R.R. at 104a (emphasis added). DOH also submitted an exemption log as to each Application. See R.R. at 114a-36a (DOH Logs). The DOH Logs were verified by its open records officer attesting the "records withheld are described in the preceding exemption log"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKelvey v. Pa. Dep't of Health
...these parties.A unanimous, en banc , Commonwealth Court, reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded to the OOR. Mission Pennsylvania, LLC v. McKelvey , 212 A.3d 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). Preliminarily, the court considered, and ultimately rejected, requests to supplement the record file......
-
Crocco v. Pa. Dep't of Health
...background and experience, that include sufficient certainty, constitute competent evidence. Purcell; see also Mission Pa., LLC v. McKelvey, 212 A.3d 119, 2019 WL 2345090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (en banc ).Further, Requester disregards that the record does not consist of statistics alone. Severa......
-
Pa. Liquor Control Bd. v. Beh
...is well-established. Department of Labor and Industry v. Heltzel , 90 A.3d 823, 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) ]. Mission Pennsylvania, LLC v. McKelvey , 212 A.3d 119, 2019 WL 2345090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (Mission Pennsylvania, LLC ), at 131.In Mission Pennsylvania, LLC , in response to a claim for e......
-
Pa. Dep't of Revenue v. Wagaman
...as this Court declines to serve as a factfinder, we rely on the record OOR developed and defer to its findings. See Mission Pa., LLC v. McKelvey, 212 A.3d 119, 130 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (en banc), appeal granted in part, McKelvey v. Pa. Dep't of Health, 224 A.3d 1089 (Pa. 2020). As such, w......