Court Upholds Injunction Against Disclosing Information Learned from Discarded City Documents

From City of Scranton v. Coyne, decided Tuesday by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, joined by Judges Michael H. Wojcik and Lori A. Dumas; I’d love to hear what list members think about it:

Coyne discovered boxes of personnel records labeled “Shred 2033,” that had been placed outside the rear entrance of City Hall. The boxes contained the personnel files of former employees that included their names, dates of birth, social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers and other personal information. Coyne took pictures of the contents of the personnel files and made a video to document his discovery. After Coyne contacted the police, he and an officer carried the boxes into City Hall.

At the April 30, 2024, City Council meeting, Coyne informed councilmembers that there had been a data breach by the City. That same day, the City Solicitor sent Coyne a letter instructing him not to disclose any information obtained from the personnel files and to destroy all photographs of the file contents.

At a City Council meeting of October 8, 2024, Coyne disclosed the name of one former City employee from the personnel files. He further stated that he would continue to name the other former employees until the City notified all of them that their personnel records had been subject to “exposure.”

On October 15, 2024, the City filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief. The complaint alleged that Coyne had examined and photographed property belonging to the City that had been mistakenly placed outside for recycling pickup. The City property consisted of boxes of personnel files of former City employees, containing their names, social security numbers, personal contact information, dates of birth, health information, and disciplinary actions. The boxes had been marked with a date for record destruction of 2033.

The complaint asserted that Coyne violated a City ordinance, which states as follows:

All recyclables as defined by this article and placed for collection by the City under the provisions of this article and any other City regulations shall, from time of placement at the curb, become the property of the City. This article forbids scavenging of recyclables once they are placed at the curb and are the property of the City. Any scavenging of recyclables can be subject to the penalties and fines included in this article….

On October 15, 2024, the trial court entered a preliminary injunction ordering Coyne … to refrain from “disseminating, divulging and/or disclosing personal information obtained from the City of Scranton’s recycling bins … including but not limited to identities, social security numbers, personal contact information, dates of birth, health information, disciplinary proceedings, information protected by applicable privileges, privacy laws and [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)].” …

Coyne argues that the names and salaries of City employees constitute public information and, thus, he cannot be restrained from disclosing a City employee’s name …. Coyne claims, however, that … he is entitled to disclose information of interest to the public, even if illegally obtained. In support, he cites New York Times Company v. United States (1971)….

Even so, New York Times does not support Coyne. First, the City ordinance forbids persons scavenging through the recyclables, and Coyne did not challenge the validity of the ordinance. Second, the information subject to the trial court injunction has not been widely disseminated, rendering injunctive relief futile, as in New York Times. [In a case affirmed by New York Times,] {the Court of Appeals observed that the information had already been published in several newspapers, which raised “substantial doubt that effective relief of the kind sought by the government can be provided by the judiciary.”} Third, Coyne is not in any way restrained from alerting the public to a matter of public interest, i.e., the City’s negligent handling of its personnel files….

The injunction prevents Coyne from revealing any information he obtained illegally. To allow Coyne to reveal some information, such as names and salaries, would be unworkable. It would create the opportunity for lapses that could lead to disclosures that even Coyne acknowledges to be confidential, such as social security numbers….

The post Court Upholds Injunction Against Disclosing Information Learned from Discarded City Documents appeared first on Reason.com.