THE COURTS
Title 246--MINOR COURT CIVIL RULES
[246 PA. CODE CHS. 600 AND 1000]
Review of Non-Commonwealth Agency Action on Requests under the Right-to-Know Law
[33 Pa.B. 753] The Minor Court Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopt new Rules 601--608 and amend existing Rules 1001 and 1007 of the Rules of Conduct, Office Standards and Civil Procedure for District Justices to provide for review of non-commonwealth agency action on requests under the Right-to-Know Law. The Committee has not submitted this proposal for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The following explanatory Report highlights the Committee's considerations in formulating this proposal. The Committee's Report should not be confused with the official Committee Notes to the rules. The Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Notes or the contents of the explanatory Reports.
The text of the proposed changes precedes the Report. Except for entirely new rules which are printed in regular type, additions are shown in bold; deletions are in bold and brackets.
We request that interested persons submit suggestions, comments, or objections concerning this proposal to the Committee through counsel,
Michael F. Krimmel, Counsel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Minor Court Rules Committee
5035 Ritter Road, Suite 700
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Fax 717-795-2175
or e-mail to: minorcourt.rules@supreme.court.state.pa.usno later than Monday, March 10, 2003.
By the Minor Court Rules Committee
THOMAS E. MARTIN, Jr.,
Chair
Annex A
TITLE 246. MINOR COURT CIVIL RULES
PART I. GENERAL
CHAPTER 600. REVIEW OF NON-COMMONWEALTH AGENCY ACTION ON REQUESTS UNDER THE RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW Rule 601. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the phrase ''Non-Commonwealth Agency'' or ''Agency'' shall mean any office, department, board, or commission of the executive branch of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or any municipal authority or similar organization created by or pursuant to a statute which declares in substance that such organization performs or has for its purpose the performance of an essential governmental function.
Adopted _____ , effective _____ .
Rule 602. Action for Review of Non-Commonwealth Agency Action; Parties.
A. A resident of the Commonwealth who alleges a denial of a request for access to a public record pursuant to the Act of June 21, 1957 (P. L. 390, No. 212), as amended, hereafter referred to as the ''Right-To-Know Law,'' may bring an action in a district justice court of proper venue by filing a civil complaint.
B. Except as otherwise provided herein, upon the filing of a complaint as provided in subdivision A, the action shall proceed as a civil action in accordance with the rules of the 300 Series.
C. No claim under Rule 315 will be permitted in an action filed pursuant to this Rule.
D. The plaintiff in an action filed pursuant to this chapter shall be the person alleging denial of the request, and the defendant shall be the Non-Commonwealth Agency. No other person may be a party to the action.
Official Note: See 65 P. S. §§ 66.1--66.9.
Adopted _____ , effective _____ .
Rule 603. Form of Complaint.
A. In addition to the information required by Rule 304, the complaint must contain
(1) a description of the record that the plaintiff requested pursuant to the Right-To-Know Law, and;
(2) the date of denial or deemed denial of access to the record, and if the denial was in writing, a copy of the written denial must be attached to the complaint.
B. A copy of the original written request to the Agency for the record must be attached to the complaint.
C. If exceptions to the denial or deemed denial were filed with the head of the Agency, a copy of the exceptions must be attached to the complaint.
Adopted _____ , effective _____ .
Rule 604. Redaction.
A. If the plaintiff objects to some redaction made by the Non-Commonwealth Agency of the record supplied, the plaintiff must specify in the complaint that part of the objection is to the redaction.
B. If the plaintiff specifies in the complaint that part of the objection is to some redaction made by the Non-Commonwealth Agency of the record supplied, the Agency must provide the district justice at the time of the hearing with a copy of the record without redaction as well as a copy of the record with redaction. The district justice may not copy the record without redaction, may never disclose its contents, and shall return it to the Agency (or counsel for the Agency) before the conclusion of the hearing.
Adopted _____ , effective _____ .
Rule 605. Judgment.
A. The judgment entered by the district justice must include findings of fact and conclusions of law including but not limited to the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT (1) A description of the record requested;
(2) A determination whether or not the plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident;
(3) A determination of the date when the written request was made to the Agency;
(4) A determination whether or not the agency is a Non-Commonwealth Agency;
(5) A determination whether or not the request was sufficiently specific to enable the Agency to ascertain what record was being requested;
(6) A determination whether or not a response to the request was made, and to whom and when it was made;
(7) A determination whether or not the Agency denied the request, and if so, a copy of any written denial must be attached to the judgment entered by the district justice;
(8) A determination whether or not the plaintiff filed exceptions to the denial or deemed denial with the head of the Agency, and if so, a copy of any written exceptions must be attached to the judgment entered by the district justice;
(9) If redaction of the record was made by the Agency before delivery of the record to the plaintiff, a determination whether or not the redaction was appropriate;
(10) A determination of what, if any, copying fees the Agency charged the plaintiff, and whether the copying fees were paid in part or in full;
(11) If access to the record was denied, a determination of the date when access to the record was denied or deemed denied;
(12) A determination whether the Agency had its own written policies or regulations governing access to public records, and if so, whether the policies or regulations were complied with;
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (13) A determination whether or not the complaint was filed within 30 days of the denial or deemed denial;
(14) A determination whether or not the district justice has jurisdiction;
(15) A determination whether or not the record is a public record;
(16) A determination whether or not access to the record was timely denied;
(17) A determination what attorney fees, if any, are awarded;
(18) A determination whether or not the costs will be assessed, and against whom the costs will be assessed, and;
(19) A determination whether or not the copying fees charged were reasonable and, if they were not reasonable, what copying fees may be charged.
B. The district justice shall provide a summary of his or her reasoning in support of the judgment.
C. The district justice shall decide if the Agency must provide access to the record, in whole or in part, and any specific conditions or rules with respect to such access, and shall enter an appropriate order as part of the judgment.
Official Note: Section 4.1 of the Right-To-Know Law makes special provision for the limited award of court costs and attorney fees. 65 P. S. § 66.4-1.
Adopted _____ , effective _____ .
Rule 606. Failure of Non-Commonwealth Agency to Promptly Comply with Order; Supplementary Action.
A. If the Non-Commonwealth Agency does not promptly comply with an order entered pursuant to Rule 605, the plaintiff may commence a supplementary action for civil penalties by filing a civil complaint in the office of the district justice in which the order was entered.
B.(1) Except as provided in subparagraph B(2), upon the filing of a complaint as provided in subdivision A, the action shall proceed as a civil action in accordance with the rules of the 300 Series.
(2) No claim under Rule 315 will be permitted in a supplementary action filed pursuant to this Rule.
Official Note: Section 5(b) of the Right-To-Know Law provides for a civil penalty for failure to promptly comply with a court order entered pursuant to the Right-To-Know Law. 65 P. S. § 66.5(b).
The action commenced under subdivision A of this Rule is a supplementary proceeding in the matter in which the order was entered. As such, it must be filed in the office of the district justice in which the order was entered. Also, it must be indexed to the same docket number as, and made a part of the record of, the underlying action. Because the supplementary action is merely a continuation of the underlying action, there are no filing costs for it, however there may be costs for service of the action.
Subdivision B provides that, once a supplementary action is filed under subdivision A, the proceedings in the action, including the form of the complaint, setting the hearing date, service, and hearing, should proceed as if a regular civil action, except that no cross-complaint under Rule 315 will be permitted. While it is not the intent of this rule to limit defenses that may be raised in a supplementary action, only those issues arising from the Rule 606 supplementary action are to be considered at the hearing. Therefore, subparagraph B(2) makes clear that no cross-complaint is permitted to be filed.
When rendering judgment in an action filed pursuant to this rule, the district justice may determine whether or not, and in what amount, if any, a civil penalty will be awarded, and to whom it will be payable.
A party may appeal from a judgment in an action filed pursuant to this rule, but issues on appeal are limited to those raised in the action filed under this rule. See Rule 1007.
Adopted _____ , effective _____ .
Rule 607. Appeal.
An appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to Rule 605 may be filed by any party in accordance with these rules.
Adopted _____ , effective _____ .
Rule 608. Enforcement.
A. The judgment entered by the district justice pursuant to Rule 605 may be enforced by entry of a certified copy of the judgment in the court of common pleas. Thereafter, an action may be brought in that court to enforce the judgment.
B. Unless a timely appeal from the judgment entered by the district justice is filed with the court of common pleas, only those issues arising from the action to enforce the judgment are to be considered in the court of common pleas.
Official Note: Subdivision B makes clear that an action brought in the court of common pleas to enforce the judgment entered by the district justice is not intended to reopen other issues from the underlying action that were not properly preserved for appeal.
Adopted _____ , effective _____ .
CHAPTER 1000. APPEALS
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO JUDGMENTS AND OTHER DECISIONS OF DISTRICT JUSTICES IN CIVIL MATTERS Rule 1001. Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
(1) ''Judgment'' means a judgment rendered by a district justice under Rule 319, 322, [ or ] 514, or 605.
* * * * * Adopted June 1, 1971. Amended April 25, 1979, effective in 30 days; June 30 1982, effective 30 days after July 17, 1982; amended effective Dec. 1, 1983; amended April 5, 2002, effective January 1, 2003; amended _____ , effective _____ .
APPEAL Rule 1007. Procedure On Appeal.
* * * * * C. When an appeal is taken from a supplementary action filed pursuant to Rule 342 or 606, only those issues arising from the [Rule 342] supplementary action are to be considered.
Official Note: As under earlier law, the proceeding on appeal is conducted de novo, but the former rule that the proceeding would be limited both as to jurisdiction and subject matter to the action before the district justice (see Crowell Office Equipment v. Krug, 213 Pa. Super. 261, 247 A.2d 657 (1968)) has not been retained. Under subdivision B, the court of common pleas on appeal can exercise its full jurisdiction and all parties will be free to treat the case as though it had never been before the district justice, subject of course to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The only limitation on this is contained in subdivision C, which makes clear that an appeal from a supplementary action filed pursuant to Rule 342 or 606 is not intended to reopen other issues from the underlying action that were not properly preserved for appeal.
Adopted June 1, 1971. Amended June 30, 1982, effective 30 days after July 17, 1982; amended April 5, 2002, effective January 1, 2003; amended _____ , effective _____ .
REPORT
Proposed New Pa. R.C.P.D.J. Nos. 601-608, and Proposed Amendments to Pa. R.C.P.D.J. Nos. 1001 and 1007
REVIEW OF NON-COMMONWEALTH AGENCY ACTION ON REQUESTS UNDER THE RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW I. Background
The Committee undertook a review of the Act of June 29, 2002 (P. L. 663, No. 100),1 which amends the Right-to-Know Law, because Section 5 of the new act provides for bringing ''an action in the local magisterial district''2 for judicial review of a denial by a non-commonwealth agency of a request to provide public records.3 The Committee noted that this provision essentially creates a new form of action in the district justice courts. The Act, however, provides no guidance as to how these actions are to be filed or how they are to proceed in the district justice courts. Therefore, the Committee believes that new procedural rules and the design of new forms will be necessary to implement this provision and to give district justices sufficient procedural guidance in handling these actions. In addition, Section 5 of the Act further provides that ''[a] requester is entitled to a reasoned decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole which clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale for the decisions so that all can determine why and how a particular result was reached.''4 Because district justices do not routinely issue written decisions or opinions, the Committee believes that implementation of this provision also will require new procedural rules and the design of new forms.
After careful consideration of the Act, the Committee proposes the adoption of a new 600 Series of rules entitled ''Review of Non-Commonwealth Agency Action on Requests Under the Right-to-Know Law.'' In addition, the Committee proposes correlative amendments to Rules 1001 and 1007 to provide necessary appellate procedures. These proposed rule changes are described in detail below.
II. Discussion of Rule Changes
A. Review of Non-Commonwealth Agency Action on Requests Under the Right-to-Know Law--New Rules
Among the Committee's first considerations was the form in which actions under the Right-to-Know Law would take. The Committee noted that to commence an action, the Act provides that ''a requester may file a petition for review or other document as might be required by rule of court with the court of common pleas . . . or bring an action in the local magisterial district.''5 Since no petition practice or similar procedure exists at the district justice level, and ''action'' as used in the Act is not further defined, the Committee concluded that actions under the Right-to-Know Law should be commenced in the district justice courts by the filing of a civil complaint. With that as the basis for the procedural scheme, the Committee proposes the following new rules to implement the provisions of the Act.
1. New Rule 601
Proposed new Rule 601 (Definitions) would provide a definition for the term ''Non-Commonwealth Agency.'' This definition would be unique to the new 600 Series rules.
2. New Rule 602
Proposed new Rule 602 (Action for Review of Non-Commonwealth Agency Action; Parties) would identify the Act under which actions may be brought pursuant to this chapter, and would further provide that the actions are to be brought on a civil complaint in accordance with the rules of the 300 Series. The rule would also prohibit cross-complaints under Rule 315 in these actions. Finally, the rule would identify and limit the parties to an action filed pursuant to this chapter as being the person alleging denial of the request for public records (plaintiff), and the Non-Commonwealth Agency (defendant).
3. New Rule 603
Proposed new Rule 603 (Form of Complaint) would list requirements for contents of the complaint that are in addition to the normal contents of a civil complaint under Rule 304. These additional requirements include a description of the record requested, and the date of denial or deemed denial of access to the record. In addition, the rule would require that a copy of the original written request and a copy of any exceptions to the agency's denial be attached to the complaint.
4. New Rule 604
Proposed new Rule 604 (Redaction) would contain special provisions relating to records that are redacted by the agency. The rule would provide that if the plaintiff objects to all or part of the redaction, that objection must be specified in the complaint. In addition, subdivision B of the proposed rule would require that the agency provide the district justice with a copy of the record without redaction to enable the district justice to make a determination of whether or not the redaction was appropriate. The rule would place restrictions on the copying and disclosure of the contents of the unredacted record, and would require that the district justice return the unredacted record before the conclusion of the hearing.
5. New Rule 605
Proposed new Rule 605 (Judgment) would contain a non-exclusive list of determinations that could be incorporated into the district justice's ''reasoned decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole which clearly and concisely states and explains the rationale for the decisions so that all can determine why and how a particular result was reached''6 as required by the Act. The rule would also provide for an order to be entered by the district justice regarding access to the record and any appropriate conditions regarding the access. It is the Committee's intent in proposing this rule that the list of determinations in the rule would be the basis for a simplified determination, opinion, and order form to be completed by the district justice to comply with the ''reasoned decision'' requirement of the Act.
6. New Rule 606
Proposed new Rule 606 (Failure of Non-Commonwealth Agency to Promptly Comply with Order; Supplementary Action) would implement Section 5(b) of the amended Right-to-Know Law which provides that ''[a]n agency or public official who does not promptly comply with a court order under this act is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $300 per day until the public records are provided.''7 Because a claim for such civil penalties must necessarily follow a court order issued pursuant to proposed Rule 605, the proposed rule provides for a supplementary civil action that may be filed in the office of the district justice in which the order was entered. This proposed rule, modeled after existing Rule 342, makes clear that the supplementary action is to proceed as a civil action under the 300 Series, and that no Rule 315 cross-complaint may be filed in conjunction with the supplementary action.
7. New Rule 607
Proposed new Rule 607 (Appeal) would provide that ''[a]n appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to [proposed] Rule 605 may be filed by any party in accordance with these rules.''
8. New Rule 608
Proposed new Rule 608 (Enforcement) would provide that a judgment entered pursuant to proposed Rule 605 may be enforced by filing a certified copy of the judgment in the court of common pleas, and then commencing an action in that court to enforce the judgment. The Committee determined this was the most practical approach to enforcement since district justices have very limited contempt powers and generally do not have equitable powers. Subdivision B of the proposed rule would make clear, however, that an action brought in the court of common pleas solely to enforce the judgment entered by the district justice is not intended to reopen issues from the underlying action that were not properly appealed.
B. Correlative Rule Changes
The Committee recognized the need for minor amendments to appellate Rules 1001 and 1007 to fully provide for appeals from judgments rendered in ''Right-to-Know Law actions.'' First, the Committee proposes an amendment to Rule 1001(1) to include a judgment rendered by a district justice pursuant to proposed Rule 605 in the definition of ''Judgment.''
The Committee further proposes that Rule 1007C be amended to further restrict appeals from supplementary actions to issues that arise from the supplementary actions. This is intended to make clear that an appeal from a supplementary action filed pursuant to proposed Rule 606 is not intended to reopen other issues from the underlying action that were not properly preserved for appeal.
1 This act amends the Act of June 21, 1957 (P. L. 390, No. 212), referred to as the Right-to-Know Law.
2 Act of June 29, 2002 (P. L. 663, No. 100) § 5, amending Section 4 of the Right-to-Know Law.
3 This provision of the Act became effective 180 days from June 29, 2002. Act of June 29, 2002 (P. L. 663, No. 100) § 8. On December 12, 2002, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an Order directing that proceedings under the Act that would otherwise be filed before district justices ''are hereby ASSIGNED TO AND SHALL BE COMMENCED IN the courts of common pleas, pending promulgation of necessary rules of practice and procedure to govern actions in local magisterial districts as provided for in said statute.'' Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Order No. 141, Magisterial Docket No. 1, Book No. 2 (December 12, 2002). This temporary reassignment of these proceedings gave the Committee and the Court sufficient time to formulate and consider this proposal while making the same relief which would otherwise have been available in the district justice courts available in the courts of common pleas.
4 Act of June 29, 2002 (P. L. 663, No. 100) § 5, amending Section 4 of the Right-to-Know Law.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Act of June 29, 2002 (P. L. 663, No. 100) § 6.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 03-217. Filed for public inspection February 7, 2003, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
