PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY C] Dental D Legal D Medical CJ Other Professional:

REAL PROPERTY D Ejectmeot [J Eminent Domain/Condemnation D Ground Rent D Landlord/I'enant Dispute D Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential tl Mortaaao Foreclosure: Commercial D Partition CJ Quiet Title D Other:

MISCELLANEOUS [J Common Law/Statutory Arbitration D Declaratory Judgment

8 Mandamus Non-Domestic Relations Restraining Order

0QuoWamnto [J Replevin [J Other:

B

CJ Tox.1c Tort - DES D Toxic Tort - Implant D Toxic Waste Cl Other:

Nature of the Case: Place an "X" to the left of the ONE case category. that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that you consider most important

TORT (do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS Cl Intentional CJ Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies D Malicious Prosecution D Debt Collection: Credit Card Cl Board of Assessment 0 Motor Vehicle D Debt Collection: Other D Board of Elections O Nuisance 8 Dept ofTransportation Cl Premises Liability Statutory Appeal: Otbe: fJ Product Liability (does not include D Employment Dispute:

mass tort) Discrimination 0 Sllillder/LibeU Defamation 0 Employment Dispute: Other D Zoning Board D Other: .-wx=·1-. ~~ ~Y" /?(¥,~¥

CJ Other: MASS TORT

CJ Asbestos CJ Tobacco -

s E c T I 0 N

C) ::-> --f ::!: Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: ·o ~:I:

Check here if you have no attorney (are a Self-Represented (Pro Se) Litiga A

Are money damages requested? t:I Yes . Jl{No

~,_ Dollar Amount Requested: . i:

•1 /")

p{No 0Yes Is this a Class Action Suit?

~Petition 'fEi Declaration of Taking

Commencement of Action: D Complaint 0 Writ of Summons Cl Transfer from Another Jurisdiction s

E c T I· 0 N

":;'$~~-~·· . -· •• i:- _._.

For Prothonotary Use Only:

Docket No: ·'·~. . JO~ -08-af),_C 5 ...

..... .,....-,... ·- Supreme c?·V~~~ylvania

Co1u·~t_c6mµJ~~Pleas ~t 1. ~~-~:=;;.ct.~" s~~t . -~m·-~~·· . . • •\'l<J ·.1 I .• re. • . ,... .

C · · ·" · ·- - . , County ·o. ~~ ....

These cover sheets must be served upon all other parties to the action immediately after filing. Submit enough copies for service.

To obtain relief from automatic trial listing a party must proceed pursuant to C.C.R.C.P. 249.3(b), request an administrative conference and obtain a court order deferring tho placement of the case on tho trial list until a later date.

Notice of Trial Listing Date Pursuant to C.C.R.C.P. 249.3, if this case is not subject to compulsory arbitration it will be presumed ready for trial twelve (12) months from the date of the initiation of the suit and will be placed on the trial list one (I) year from the date the suit was filed unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Writ of Certiorari Injunctive Relief Mechanics Lien Claim Issuance of Foreign Subpoena Name Change Petition for Structured Settlement Protection from Sexual Violence/Intimidation

Arbf tration Cases Only Arbitration Date Arbitration Time Defendants are cautioned that the scheduling of an arbitration date does not alter the duty of the defendant to respond to the complaint and does not prevent summary disposition from occurring prior to the arbitration date. ThiJ matter will be heard by a Board of Arbitrators at the time and date specified but, if one or more of the panics is not present at the hearing, the matter may be heard at the same time and date before a judge of the court without the absent party or p1.r1ies. There is no right to a trial de nova on appeal from a decision entered by a judge.

Annulment Custody· Conciliation.Required Custody· Foreign Order Custody - No Conciliation Required Divorce - Ancillary Relief Request Divorce - No Ancillary Relief Requested Foreign Divorce Foreign Protection from Abuse Patemlty Protection from Abuse Standby Guardianship

File with: Chester Counry Justice Center, Prothonotary Office, 201 W. Market St., Ste. 142S, PO Box 2746, West Chester, PA 19380-0989

Nature of case if not on previous cover sheet - Please choose the most applicable

Jury Trial Demanded

Defendant in the original action? If this is an appeal from a Magisterial District Judgment, was appellant

D Motion to Confirm ArbilTation Awud peal Commencement of Acdon (If appUcable): D AltfCClllCOI for an Amicable Action

tlo Are there any related cases? Please provide case nos.

Plaintiff's/ Appellant's Attorney (circle one) (Name, firm, address, telephone and attorney ID#)

Defendant(s): (Nsrne, Address, T,elephone) We>! Vo1~1JF~n5/,'/-' 010~% /Cl).~ (C441' r, .C.f :))..(;G VP> f-C/cr,'11/ /~ 19 }8-"C)

PlaiJJtifft:s): (Nam,;z Address, Telephon

Wf>f t::-~tr/er l/J IC/Jg{)

Defendants who are proceeding without counsel are strongly urged to file with the Protbono~ wn'ffin statement of an address AND a telephone number at which they can be reach~.::j 'i -o J11 ~l>-1 :::;:

Docket No:

Chester County Court of Common Pleas

....., <:::)

"""" =-- 7) . i N ·- °' I:) :11 ::x - :::;, ..

0 Ct\

1

Dcfcndant(s) did not grant the RTK Request in its entirety as required by law.

was not sent between Township employees, managers or supervisors. ln addition, the

its ruling that evidence provided by Plaintiff was not responsive to the RTK Request because it

by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records [OOR Docket AP 2016-0868]. The OOR erred In

Plaintiff petitions this Honorable Court to review and overturn the Final Determination

PETITION FOR REVIEW TO OVBRTIJRN THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS [OOR] FINAL RULING AND TO COMPEL TilE

DEFENDANT(S) TO PROVIDE ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED Casey vs. West Goshen Township OOR Docket AP 2016-0868

PLAINTIFF' COMPLAINT-CIVIL ACTION

WEST GOSHEN TOWNSHIP 1025 Paoli Pike, West Chester, PA 19380

Defendant(s)

VS.

'"""I-· PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ~; •. ~ ,. r__. -, ..

~ _, I :.rn .. C),.,, · .. ._.._,.. .c.:JC' ;-, .,, ; . _,

: No. Jt/l~-o~a=J.-~

THOMAS CASEY

Plaintiff, Pro Se

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY,

2

1 The OOR except.d the Oefendant(s) attestation as sufficient evldentlary support for the nonexistence of records. Even thou&h Pl1lntlff provided evidence to the contrary. Plaintiff's Exhibit dearly showed -sent", .. to", and •cc'd• persoMel of the Township. 1 Facts of record: (1) Dive Woodward • Dl~ctw of Pub/le Worts, (2) Casey Lalonde • Township Manager, (3) Mike Moffa - Township Sewer Superintendent, (4) Phil COfVO· Township Supervisor, (S) Ted Murphy-Ex-Township Supervisor, (6) Ray Halvorsen - Director of Pub/le Worlcs/Townshlp Supervisor, and (7) Tlna Olarron - Administrative Assistant W4tst Goshen Wastewater Trtt1tment Plant

The above named Individuals 1U are currently employed by the Township or acted on behalf of the Township durln1 the orl1ln1I time of 2001 to March 2016 Included In the orlglnll RTIC Request parameters.

I. The QOR failed to recognize the competency and merit in the evidence provided in

Plaintiff's OOR Exhibit-L 1 which clearly shows there was correspondence responsive to the

original RTK Request that was not provided by the Defendant(s). 2

CAUSE OF ACTION

Determination.

County Court of Common Pleas for judicial review of Plaintiff's. OOR Docket 2016-0868 Fioal

PA 65 P.S. § 67.1302(a) of the Right to Know Law (RTKL) grants jurisdiction to the Chester

JUR1SDICTION

Appeal with the PA Office of Open Records (OOR).

26, 2016. Defendant(s) provided some responsive information, approximately 25 pages. Plaintiff

inquired if there was more information. Defendant(s) failed to respond and Plaintiff then filed an

were non-responsive. Therefore, Plaintiff then filed a Right to Know Request (RTK) on March

ln an attempt to understand the scope o~ the issues, Plaintiff asked questions at public

meetings in February and March 2016, and did not receive adequate answers or Dcfendant(s)

maintenance, and equipment improvements in excess of$13 million dollars for the Plant.

Goshen Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant). These were to include issues regarding safety,

The Defendant(s) made public statements regarding severe problems with the West

3

3 Section 708 deals with exceptions for public records, specifically If they are deemed unresponsive due to employee matters. Neither the OOR nor the Oefendant(s) argued this during the appeals process. 4 Section 706. Redaction: If an agency determines that a public record, legislative record or flnanclal record contains Information which Is subject to access as well as Information which Is not subject to access, the agency's response shall grant access to the Information which Is subject to access and deny access to the Information which Is not subject to access. If the Information which Is not subject to access Is an lntearal part of the public record, leaJslatlve record or flnandal record and cannot be separated, the aaency shall redact from the record the Information which Is not subject to access, and the response shall grant access to the Information which Is subject to access. The aaency may not deny access to the record If the Information which Is not subject to access Is able to be redacted. Information which an aaency redacts In accordance with this subsection shall be deemed a denial under Chapter 9. 5 Plaintiffs Rebuttal dated June 23, 2016, Ms. Sharon Lynn was defined as belna a Township manager of record from 2001 to 2007. ' Due to the lenath and scope of the request, many of these records may be archived or stored elsewhere. Also, (contlnu~d) ...

acknowledge record retention schedule guidelines or procedures of the Township as put forth

by the PA Historical & Museum Commission and the Municipal Records Act.6

7. The Defendant(s) did not clearly define the nature or extent of the records search or

assumed I meant only the current Township manager Mr. LaLonde. s

was their understanding (or interpretation) that when I referenced "Township manager" they

intention for the request when it stated in the Defcndant(s) rebuttal dated June 21, 2016 that it

6. The Defendant(s) purposefully mislead the OOR by misconstruing Plaintiff's original

R TKL Section 706. 4

5. The Defendant(s) failed to respond in writing noting exceptions for redactions under PA

Plaintiffs original RTK Request dated March 23, 2016.

4. The Defendant(s) failed to provide all responsive communications as requested on the

3. The OOR failed to compel the Defendant(s) to prove that certain records not provided to the

Plaintiff, were to be deemed not responsive and exempt under PA RTKL Section 708.3

the titles "sent", "to", and "cc'd".

regarding the transmission and reception of standard email communications which include

2. The OOR failed to recognize twenty-five years of acceptable correspondence practices

4

... (continued) the retention schedule states Public works maintenance records should be held for 5 years, Waste management between 2 years to permanent depending on subtopic, and Administrative records to be retained as long as of administrative value. There has been no Municipal Records Disposal Certification Request In the past 10 years. 1 Audio and video recordings available. Due to the timing of the meeting and the deadline of the Appeal for Review, Plaintiff was unable to provide a copy with the submission.

• Oefendant(s) are changing the facts, and creating a denial after the fact regarding Plaintiff's RTK Request. PA 6S P .s. § 67 .903 of the Right to Know Law states: "If an agency's response is a denial of a written requestfor access, whether In whole or In part, the denial shall be Issued In writing and shall Include:

(1) A description of the record requested.

(2) The specific reasons for the denial, lndudlng a citation of supportina ~al authority. (3) The typed or printed name, title, business address, business telephone number and slanature of the open-records officer on whose authority the denial ls Issued. (4) Date of the response. (5) The procedure to appeal the denl1I of ac;c;ess under this act.

On Auaust 17, 2016 th• Def1ndant(1) stated that the Plaintiff only had a put of the puzzle and that certain records were considered to be personnel Issues that are not allowed to be discussed publicly. PA RTK Law section 708 wlll support that assertion. However, this notion was never discussed durlna the RTK grantlna or the OOR appeals araument outlln1d In Plalntlffs OOR Exhibit D. Plaintiff did not ask for Information reprdlna employee matters but slmpty publicly available Information to be acquired through a RTK Reque.st under the PA RTK Law.

1

the dispute and avoid the need to file this complaint with Court of Common Pleas .

12. Defendant(s) failed to act in good faith on August 17, 2016, when Plaintiff attempted to settle

that all responsive inquiries not included were exempt.

Section 708 which requires them to provide proof through a preponderance of the evidence

Plaintiff's request as demonstrated in Plaintiffs OOR Exhibit L.

11. The Defendant(s) failed to reference their decision to omit information under the PA RTKL

8. The Defendant(s), on August 17, 2016 at the Township Board of Supervisors meeting,

implied that township records regarding my request were not included, or deemed not

responsive, because they were personnel issues. 7

9. Plaintiff did not receive a written denial of request that stated records of an employee related

issue were to be omitted, as is required by PA R TKL Section 903. 8

10. The Defendant(s) acted in bad faith when they did purposefully omit infonnation from

5

'PA 65 P .s. t 67 .1304 Court costs and attOf'ney fees and PA 65 p .s. t 67.1305 CMI pen111ty.

Cc: West Ocshen Township (via hand delivered) Kristin Camp, West Goshen Township Solicitor (via hand delivered) Erik Arneson, Executive Director PA Office of Open Records (via email)

Dated this 26tb day of August, 2016

Thomas Casey

Pro Se

1304 and 1305.9

E. That this Court apply any other relief as may be just and proper under Pa RTK Law Sections

D. That this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Right-to-Know Request dated March 23, 2016.

C. That this Honorable Court order the Defendant(s) to provide all responsive documents to

B. That this Honorable Court find that Plaintiffs request was not met in full.

that they were employee related after the fact.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff acting Pro Se, and in good faith, in this matter requests the following relief and for it be ordered:

A. That this Honorable Court overturn the Office of Open Records Denial of Appeal.

provided to only then state that some documents were not responsive due to their suggestion

responsive to Plaintiff's RTK Request.

14. Defcndant(s) acted in bad faith when they verified that all responsive docwnents were

13. Defendant(s) acted in bad faith when they knowingly withheld communications that were

-~ Plaintiff, Pro Se

Date: August 26, 2016

falsification to authorities.

statements herein are made subject to the penalties of I 8 PA C.S. §4094, relating to unswom

and correct to the best of my knowledge, understanding and belief. I understand that false

I, Thomas Casey . verify that the statements made in this Civil Complaint are true

VERIFICATION

PEmION FOR REVIEW TO OVERTURN THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS [OOR] FINAL RULING AND TO COMPEL THE

DEFENDANT(S) TO PROVIDE ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED Casey vs. West Goshen Township OOR Dooket AP 201~0868

Cc: West Goshen Township (via hand delivered) Kristin Camp, Esq. West Goshen Township Solicitor (via hand delivered) Erik Arneson, 11xecutivc Director PA Office of Open Records (via email)

Thomas Casey Pro Se

Dated this 26'b day of August, 2016

Thomas Casey

(for electronic submissions)

To the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County:

The undersigned Petitioner in the above referenced matter enters an appearance in this action as Pro Se Petitioner. I request notice of all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court and the opposing party will be informed of any changes in address. Any and all notices should be sent to:

NOTICE OF PRO SE APPEARANCE

vs.

THOMAS CASEY

Plaintiff, Pro Se

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYL V AN1A CIVIL DIVISION

WEST GOSHEN TOWNSHIP 1025 Paoli Pike, West Chester, PA 19380

Defendant(s)