OOR’s Recent Ruling in Curry v. Girardville Borough: prying into a requester's purpose and motivations for filing a request

In Curry v. Girardville Borough (AP 2024-3090), the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) issued a deeply flawed decision that contradicts the black letter law of the Right to Know Law (RTKL). The OOR improperly scrutinized the identity, motive, and purpose of the requester—something the RTKL explicitly prohibits. Even more troubling, this ruling could open the door to improper discovery into requesters' identities and motives, chilling access to public records.

65 P.S. § 67.703 ("A written request need not include any explanation of the requester's reason for requesting or intended use of the records unless otherwise required by law.").

The Records Sought & The Borough’s Denial

Frank Curry, using the FOIA Buddy platform, submitted a request for records related to vendor permits issued by Girardville Borough, including fees and ordinances. The Borough denied the request, claiming that it was “anonymous” and that FOIA Buddy did not qualify as a requester under the RTKL. FOIA Buddy is an online platform that allows any requester to submit requests through Frank Curry, a real human being residing in Pennsylvania.

Curry appealed, arguing that his identity was clearly established and that proxy requests are permitted under the law. He even provided additional evidence, including his driver’s license and other documentation, proving that he was a legal requester.

Once it was established that there was a real requester who was an identifiable United States citizen, the inquiry should have ended there.

For better legal analysis on this issue, see Atchinson v. Hospital of St. Mary's, in which the Georgia Supreme Court held that it was perfectly fine for a corporation in Florida to hire a Georgia citizen for the sole purpose of filing requests on their behalf in that state, even when the Georgia Open Records Act only permitted Georgia citizens to file requests. To probe behind the Georgia proxy, the state court properly held, would be opening the door to scrutinizing requester motive and identity.

This decision places Pennsylvania behind decades' worth of other similar state decisions holding that proxy requests are perfectly fine.

For years, attorneys in Pennsylvania have filed requests on their client's behalf. Media organizations frequently file requests under proxy names to prevent an agency from learning of a current investigation into a particular issue. This has been the norm since before the RTKL was enacted.

OOR’s Improper Focus on the Requester’s Identity & Intent

The OOR dismissed the appeal, concluding that because Curry used FOIA Buddy to submit the request, it should be treated as “anonymous” and therefore not subject to appeal. This reasoning is completely at odds with the RTKL, which states that agencies cannot inquire into a requester's motive or status.

The OOR focused not on the records requested but on who was making the request and how they submitted it.

A Dangerous Path: Opening the Door to Discovery into Requesters’ Identities

Even more concerning is that this ruling could embolden agencies to probe deeper into a requester’s identity and motives, potentially opening the door to discovery tactics that force requesters to defend themselves rather than their right to access public records. The OOR apparently sent Curry a litany of inquiries not dissimilar to interrogatories in a civil lawsuit, demanding to know the factual circumstances behind his request.

This could lead to improper fishing expeditions where agencies attempt to intimidate or deter requesters by digging into the background motive and purpose behind filing the request.

Why This Decision is Wrong & Must Be Challenged

The RTKL is built on the principle that public records belong to the people of the United States, regardless of why they are asking for them. This decision not only undermines that core principle but also invites a dangerous shift toward requester-focused denials and improper discovery into motives.