Susan Noto and Zillow, Inc. v. Luzerne County

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of Susan Noto and Zillow, Inc.’s appeal concerning Luzerne County’s fee for producing complex property assessment data under the Right-to-Know Law. The court held that the County’s per-parcel fee was based on the reasonable market value of the same or closely related data sets and found no bad faith warranting attorney fees or litigation costs.

Holdings

1. For complex and extensive data sets, including integrated property assessment lists such as CAMA data, an agency may base copying fees on the reasonable market value of the same or closely related data sets. Comparing fees charged by other Pennsylvania counties for comparable CAMA data provided a reasonable basis for determining market value, and Luzerne County's fee was reasonable.
2. Luzerne County did not act in bad faith by imposing the CAMA-data fee, and Appellants were not entitled to attorney fees or litigation costs under Section 1304(a) of the Right-to-Know Law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Section 1307(b)(2) and (4) of the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law permits an agency to charge a fee for complex and extensive public records based on the reasonable market value of the same or closely related data sets, rather than solely on the reasonable market value of duplication services.
2. Whether Luzerne County acted in bad faith by imposing a fee intended to recoup the costs of acquiring and maintaining the requested CAMA data.

Disposition

affirmed