Granted: Unredacted legal records or itemized reasons for redactions
May 18, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Dickinson
Twp | Privilege
| Non-criminal
investigations | Disruptive
requests | Personnel
records
Granted: A request for vouchers,
financial disclosure statements and a copy of a
lawyer-client agreement from Dickinson Township,
where the township had provided copies of
redacted documents but not itemized legal reasons
for each redaction.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition
Granted: A request for vouchers, financial disclosure statements and a copy of a lawyer-client agreement from Dickinson Township, where the township had provided copies of redacted documents but not itemized legal reasons for each redaction.
The township had provided copies of redacted documents, citing attorney/client privilege, attorney work product, the non-criminal investigation exception, the personnel matters exception, and the potential acquisition of real estate exception.
The Office of Open Records noted that the township did not provide legal support or indicate which exception applied to each redaction that was made.
The OOR cited the provision in the law which requires an agency to include in its denial the special reason for the denial, including a citation of supporting legal authority.
The OOR emphasized the following:
"It is critical to state that the OOR gives paramount respect to the attorney-client privilege and recognizes the importance of vociferously guarding this privilege. However, merely providing a list of RTKL exceptions that apply generally to the redactions as a whole is insufficient to meet an agency’s burden. The law requires the township 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."
The OOR also rejected the townships contention that the request was disruptive because the requester, after initially requesting to review the documents, requested copies after seeing the volume of the records.
"The OOR finds that such a request is not a 'repeated request" ... and that the township failed to meet its burden in asserting how this request is burdensome."
The Office of Open Records ruled that the township was required to provide legal support for each redaction or to provide unredacted copies of the records requested.
Thompson vs. Dickinson Township -- AP 2009-0302
Granted: A request for vouchers, financial disclosure statements and a copy of a lawyer-client agreement from Dickinson Township, where the township had provided copies of redacted documents but not itemized legal reasons for each redaction.
The township had provided copies of redacted documents, citing attorney/client privilege, attorney work product, the non-criminal investigation exception, the personnel matters exception, and the potential acquisition of real estate exception.
The Office of Open Records noted that the township did not provide legal support or indicate which exception applied to each redaction that was made.
The OOR cited the provision in the law which requires an agency to include in its denial the special reason for the denial, including a citation of supporting legal authority.
The OOR emphasized the following:
"It is critical to state that the OOR gives paramount respect to the attorney-client privilege and recognizes the importance of vociferously guarding this privilege. However, merely providing a list of RTKL exceptions that apply generally to the redactions as a whole is insufficient to meet an agency’s burden. The law requires the township 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."
The OOR also rejected the townships contention that the request was disruptive because the requester, after initially requesting to review the documents, requested copies after seeing the volume of the records.
"The OOR finds that such a request is not a 'repeated request" ... and that the township failed to meet its burden in asserting how this request is burdensome."
The Office of Open Records ruled that the township was required to provide legal support for each redaction or to provide unredacted copies of the records requested.
Thompson vs. Dickinson Township -- AP 2009-0302