Olick v. City of Easton Police Department, 103119 PACCA, 108 C.D. 2019

Docket Nº:108 C.D. 2019
Opinion Judge:CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, JUDGE.
Party Name:Thomas W. Olick, Appellant v. City of Easton Police Department
Judge Panel:BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
Case Date:October 31, 2019
Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

Thomas W. Olick, Appellant

v.

City of Easton Police Department

No. 108 C.D. 2019

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

October 31, 2019

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: August 2, 2019

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, JUDGE.

Thomas W. Olick (Olick) appeals pro se from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (trial court) dated August 27, 2018 denying his motion for sanctions against the City of Easton Police Department (Police). In denying sanctions, the trial court rejected Olick's claim that the Police did not comply with an earlier trial court order requiring the Police to produce documents Olick requested in discovery. Because we conclude that the trial court's August 27, 2018 order is interlocutory, we quash this appeal.

Olick commenced this matter on January 17, 2017 by filing a "Complaint/Enforcement of a Final Determination" (Complaint) with the trial court. In his Complaint, Olick alleged that the Police failed to disclose records as ordered by the Office of Open Records (OOR) in response to two requests he made on August 13 and 14, 2015 pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104. Complaint ¶¶ 3-6. Olick alleged that the OOR gave the Police 30 days to appeal its final determination and that the Police did not appeal it, and therefore, the Police waived any objections to it. Id. ¶¶ 7-9. Olick further alleged that the Police failed to produce documents he requested in response to a subpoena issued in a case pending before a magisterial district judge, which "sought the same records noted in the [RTKL] [r]equests." Id. ¶ 18.

Because the Police failed to comply with the OOR's final determination and the subpoena, Olick alleged that the Police acted in "bad faith" and that he, as the plaintiff, "is entitled" to receive the RTKL statutory penalties.1 Complaint ¶ 26. Olick sought an order from the trial court directing the Police to (1) produce "in entirety" all records sought; (2) an award of damages in the amount of $1, 500 plus $500 per day beginning on August 13, 2015 [the day of Olick's first record request] and continuing until payment is fully received in full for each of the RTKL requests; and (3) for the court to grant "any other relief" it deems to be "just and proper." Id.

After the pleadings closed, on March 11, 2017, Olick served his "First Set of Discovery Request [sic]" on the Police seeking documents relating to the incident reports referenced in the RTKL requests and documents relating to the subpoena issued by a magisterial district judge. See Plaintiff Thomas W. Olick's First Set of Discovery Request. The Police responded that: it previously produced the requested documents; it did not produce documents relating to a particular incident because they are not relevant to Olick; and it represented that it is not aware of a "subpoena issued" by the magisterial district judge. See Defendant, City of Easton Police Department's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. On July 10, 2018...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP