Granted: Unredacted attorney invoices; district failed to defend redactions
July 30, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| East
Stroudsburg SD | Redaction
| Privilege
| Emails
| Record
doesn't exist
Granted: A request for
communications, invoices and payments made to an
attorney by the East Stroudsburg Area School
District, in regards to a letter the attorney
wrote to the requester on the school district’s
behalf. The district provided extensively
redacted copies of the requested records, citing
the attorney-client privilege.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted: A request for communications, invoices and payments made to an attorney by the East Stroudsburg Area School District, in regards to a letter the attorney wrote to the requester on the school district’s behalf.
The district provided extensively redacted copies of the requested records, citing the attorney-client privilege.
The invoices provided were redacted so that the only information visible were the hours worked, the rate per hour, and the total amount billed for the time worked. The district said the redacted information was exempt under the attorney-client privilege. The district also noted that it redacted information that was not part of the request.
With respect to the email communications between the district and the attorney on this matter, the district provided a sword affidavit that the emails do not exist, which the OOR accepted as sufficient basis for denying the requester’s appeal for those records.
With regards to the redacted invoices, the OOR noted that legal invoices are public record, with the exception of descriptions that reveal information protected by the attorney-client privilege. The OOR cited the Schenck vs. Centre Twp. court case, as well as its own rulings in Hylton vs. Pottstown School District AP 2009-0043, and Meachem vs. Pocono Mountain School District, AP 2009-0448.
“However, under the RTKL, the district must still rebut the presumption of openness with respect to its redactions and show that they are not public,” the OOR wrote. “ ... (A)n agency is required to explain the reasons for its
redaction of a record, as such redaction constitutes a partial denial.”
“The OOR gives paramount respect to the attorney-client privilege and recognizes the importance of vociferously guarding this privilege. The law requires the district to provide some objective indicia that the exemption is applicable, keeping in mind that the words 'attorney-client privilege' or 'legal advice' are not some talisman that excuses the agency from the burden it must meet to withhold records.
“Here, the district failed to offer sufficient evidence that the records are protected. As such, it has failed to meet the burden of proving that its invoices are exempt from disclosure.”
The OOR directed the district to release unredacted copies of the requested records.
Day vs. East Stroudsburg School District -- AP 2009-0494
Granted: A request for communications, invoices and payments made to an attorney by the East Stroudsburg Area School District, in regards to a letter the attorney wrote to the requester on the school district’s behalf.
The district provided extensively redacted copies of the requested records, citing the attorney-client privilege.
The invoices provided were redacted so that the only information visible were the hours worked, the rate per hour, and the total amount billed for the time worked. The district said the redacted information was exempt under the attorney-client privilege. The district also noted that it redacted information that was not part of the request.
With respect to the email communications between the district and the attorney on this matter, the district provided a sword affidavit that the emails do not exist, which the OOR accepted as sufficient basis for denying the requester’s appeal for those records.
With regards to the redacted invoices, the OOR noted that legal invoices are public record, with the exception of descriptions that reveal information protected by the attorney-client privilege. The OOR cited the Schenck vs. Centre Twp. court case, as well as its own rulings in Hylton vs. Pottstown School District AP 2009-0043, and Meachem vs. Pocono Mountain School District, AP 2009-0448.
“However, under the RTKL, the district must still rebut the presumption of openness with respect to its redactions and show that they are not public,” the OOR wrote. “ ... (A)n agency is required to explain the reasons for its
redaction of a record, as such redaction constitutes a partial denial.”
“The OOR gives paramount respect to the attorney-client privilege and recognizes the importance of vociferously guarding this privilege. The law requires the district to provide some objective indicia that the exemption is applicable, keeping in mind that the words 'attorney-client privilege' or 'legal advice' are not some talisman that excuses the agency from the burden it must meet to withhold records.
“Here, the district failed to offer sufficient evidence that the records are protected. As such, it has failed to meet the burden of proving that its invoices are exempt from disclosure.”
The OOR directed the district to release unredacted copies of the requested records.
Day vs. East Stroudsburg School District -- AP 2009-0494