Q:  My RTKL request was denied for lack of specificity. What are the general rules I should follow to avoid this issue in the future?

A: The Right-to-Know Law requires requests to “identify or describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to ascertain which records are being requested” and the courts have created a three-part test to assist agencies, the OOR and courts when applying that general rule.

The three-part test for specificity was developed by appellate court holdings to help guide requesters, agencies, and courts in determining whether a request is “sufficiently specific” under the RTKL.  Most notably, the decisions issued by the Commonwealth Court in Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d 1121 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015), and Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013) provide the framework of the specificity test, but those decisions and their progeny make clear that the factors are not mandatory, and requests can be sufficiently specific if they lack an element of the test.

Even though the specificity test is not mandatory, agencies routinely deny requests that do not contain all three elements. When drafting a request, it is a good practice to consider whether it contains all three elements, and if not, to reconsider the language prior to submission. Being denied for lack of specificity can cause significant delays because requesters will be required to re-submit the request with different language or file an administrative appeal to address the issue, both of which take valuable time.

The basic elements of the specificity test are:

1. The subject matter of the request must identify the “transaction or activity” of the agency for which the record is sought.
   • Note: Keywords alone are not generally sufficient and don’t necessarily identify a “transaction or activity” of an agency, but they can be helpful, especially when requesting electronic records like emails, text messages and other correspondence.
2. The scope of the request must identify a discrete group of documents e.g., type or recipient.
   • Note: If you know the record involves particular public positions and you know public employee names, job titles, etc., include that information. If you know an agency uses a specific term to refer to a record, use it. If you do not know names, job titles or specific terminology, describe the information in the records and/or how it is used as well as the type of record, e.g., correspondence, aggregated data, financial records, settlement agreements, salary records, policies, etc.
3. The time frame of the request should identify a finite period of time for which records are sought, e.g., a date range.
   • Date range is the most flexible of the three prongs and the lack of a time frame or a lengthy time frame does not necessarily result in a lack of specificity.

In addition to the general rules above, requests should also avoid including catch-all terms like “any and all” and “including but not limited to” as those terms have been found to lack specificity. The courts have also expressly frowned upon “fishing expeditions” in the RTKL context, thus it is important to have a clear understanding of the records being sought as you draft your request.

As always, this is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice.  Please contact your news organization’s attorney or the PNA Legal Hotline at (717) 703-3080 with questions or to have your draft RTKL request reviewed prior to submission.