DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE MATTER OF :
: No. ______________ CD 2018
EQUITY FORWARD, :
Mary Alice Carter,
Petitioner :
: Appeal from a Final
v. : Determination of the Office of Open
: Records, at Docket No.: AP 2017-2304
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF :
HUMAN SERVICES, :
Respondent :
:
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Equity Forward and Mary Alice Carter petition for review of the January 22, 2018 Final
Determination of the Office of Open Records in the matter of Mary Alice Carter v. Pennsylvania
Department of Human Services, OOR Docket No. 2017-2304. In that Final Determination, the
OOR inaccurately held that the public is not entitled to access documents in possession of the
Department of Human Services, as part of a multi-million taxpayer funded grant given to a grant
recipient. In support, Petitioner assert as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This Petitioner appeals from a determination of the OOR. Specifically, Petitioner seeks
reversal of the denial of the OOR’s Final Determination in Docket No. AP-2017-2304.
2. This Court has proper jurisdiction over this matter as a petition for review within its
appellate jurisdiction, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 763(a), and as a matter arising under the
Right-to-Know Law, pursuant to 65 P.S. § 67.1301(a).
PARTIES SEEKING REVIEW
3. The party bringing this petition is the requester, Mary Alice Carter of Equity Forward.
DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
4. Respondent Department of Human Services (“Department” is an administrative agency of
Pennsylvania, a “Commonwealth agency” and subject to RTKL, 65 P.S. 67.102.)
BACKGROUND
5. On September 25, 2017, the Petitioner requested, among other public records, financial
information related to a $32.5 million grant provided to Real Alternatives by the
Department.
6. On November 15, 2017, after extending its time to respond by thirty days and the Requester
agreeing to additional time, see 65 P.S. § 67.902(b)(2), the Department partially denied the
Request, arguing that the Request does not seek records under the RTKL. See 65 P.S. §
67.102. The Department also claimed that records responsive to Item 3 of the Request do
not exist, and other records contain confidential proprietary information, 65 P.S. §
67.708(b)(11).
7. On December 7, 2017, the Requester appealed to the OOR, challenging the partial denial
and stating grounds for disclosure.
8. On January 22, 2018, the OOR issued its Final Determination in the matter captioned Mary
Alice Carter v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, OOR Docket No. 2017-2304.
A copy of the Final Determination is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL
9. The Final Determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) erred by finding that the
records sought were not public financial records related to the grant issuance.
DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
10. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by failing to hold that, pursuant to 506(d), the
records were public records held by a third-party related to the grant issuance. 65 P.S.
67.506(d).
11. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by holding that the withheld records were not
in the constructive possession of the agency pursuant to Section 901 of the Right-to-Know
law (“RTKL”).
12. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by failing to hold that DHS abdicated its
statutory responsibility under sections 901, 903, 305 and 506(d) in responding to this
request for records under the RTKL.
13. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by not holding DHS to account for its failure to
comply with the procedural requirements of the RTKL, by first failing to conduct a good
faith effort to determine if the records requested in request No. 1, 2, and 3, were public.
65 P.S. 66.901.
14. Specifically, OOR should have held that DHS failed to meet its burden of proof because
DHS failed to enumerate one exception under the RTKL or provide any independent
legal citation or analysis in support of its denial.
15. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by accepting DHS’s unfounded and legally
unsupported position that the records are information of a private entity not subject to the
law, do not directly relate to a government function, or otherwise are protected as trade
secrets or confidential proprietary information, without any support for those assertions.
16. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by permitting DHS to assert – without legal
analysis or support – that the requested records constitute trade secrets but provides no
DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
analysis or support. Section 708(b)(11) exempts from disclosure “[a] record that
constitutes or reveals a trade secret.” 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(11).
17. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by relying upon the agency director’s
attestation that the agency does not receive the requested records “in the general course of
monitoring the grant agreement,” to find that the withheld records were not in the
constructive possession of the agency pursuant to Section 901 of the Right-to-Know law
(“RTKL”).
18. The Petitioner affirmatively asserts that the OOR’s determination erred in stating that there
is no competent evidence that the additional records exist - primarily because a
government audit of September 2017 found that the Department had not exercised
sufficient oversight over Real Alternatives’ existent expenditures.
19. The Final Determination of the OOR misinterpreted Beuhl v. Office of Open Records as a
bright-line, per se holding that all contents of all contracts between government contractors
and their service providers were not “directly related” to a government function.
20. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by not analyzing the direct relationship of the
requested records to the governmental function that Real Alternatives provides, pursuant
to this Court’s instruction in UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Baron, 171 A.3d
943, 947 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
21. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by not acknowledging that the government
function of Real Alternatives, namely “to provide counseling, referral, and other specified
services for alternatives to abortion,” and the function of Real Alternatives under the
PDAA’s—which, according to the attestation of Mr. Bagatta was “to develop and advance
other life affirming programs both locally and nationally”— are one and the same.
DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
22. The Final Determination of the OOR erred by failing to consider whether the government
function was related to the records requested, instead focusing solely on the extent to which
the agency was inspecting or approving the actions of the contractor carrying out the
function on behalf of the government.
RELIEF SOUGHT
23. For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court reverse
the January 22, 2018 Final Determination of the OOR, and to order the public records to
be produced. Petitioner also seeks reasonable attorney fees and costs of this litigation
pursuant to the RTKL, 65 P.S.67.1304.
Respectfully submitted,
Terry L. Mutchler, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner
Mutchler Lyons Law
219 S. State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
terry.mutchler@mutchlerlyons.com
Dated: February 21, 2018 Id. No. 308052
DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE MATTER OF :
: No. ______________ CD 2018
EQUITY FORWARD
Mary Alice Carter, :
Petitioner :
: Petition for Review of the Final
v. : Determination of the Office of Open
: Records, at Docket No.: AP 2017-2304
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF :
HUMAN SERVICES, :
Respondent :
:
NOTICE TO PARTICIPATE
TO: REAL ALTERNATIVES OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS
c/o Joshua Voss, Esq. Charles Rees Brown
One Liberty Place, 46th Fl Magdalene C. Zeppos
1650 Market Street 400 North Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103 Harrisburg, PA 17103
DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
If you intend to participate in this proceeding in the Commonwealth Court, you must serve
and file a notice of intervention under Pa.R.A.P. 1531 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure within 30 days.
Terry L. Mutchler, Esq.
DATE: February 21, 2018 Attorney for Petitioner
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE MATTER OF :
: No. ______________ CD 2018
EQUITY FORWARD
Mary Alice Carter, :
Petitioner :
: Petition for Review of the Final
v. : Determination of the Office of Open
: Records, at Docket No.: AP 2017-2304
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF :
HUMAN SERVICES, :
Respondent :
:
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Terry L. Mutchler, hereby certify that on February 21, 2018, I caused the foregoing
Petition for Review to be filed with the Court, and served the same via US Mail, postage prepaid,
upon the following:
Real Alternatives Marisa Cohan, Esq.
DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Kleinbard LLC Pennsylvania Dep’t of Human Services
Joshua Voss, Esq. 7th & Forster Sts 3rd Fl
One Liberty Place, 46th Fl H&W B
1650 Market Street Harrisburg, PA, 17120-0001
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Office of Open Records Andrea Bankes
Charles Rees Brown
Magdalene C. Zeppos
400 North Street
Harrisburg, PA 17103
Terry L. Mutchler, Esq.
DATE: February 21, 2018 Attorney for Petitioner
