HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania state court ruled unanimously Tuesday that the Office of Open Records has the authority to order a private review of records to decide disputes about access to government documents and information. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Office of Open Records has the authority to review records in camera – i.e., outside of the parties’ view – to determine if the records are public under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that information in legal bills that reflected clients’ names and the description of work done by lawyers paid by the state Senate must be disclosed under the Right to Know Law and is not exempt as attorney work-product, under grand jury secrecy rules, or by the Law’s criminal investigation exception. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the Office of Open Records has the authority to interpret federal laws in determining whether a record is public under the Right to Know Law. The Court further held that where a federal statute outlines procedures for granting public access to information, that law does not address whether a record is considered public under the RTKL. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that records of rates paid by managed care organization subcontractors to dental service providers were not records of the Department of Public Welfare nor were they available to the DPW through third-party contracts. As a result, the records were not subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that records containing rates paid by the Department of Public Welfare to managed care organizations were subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law, as they were financial records to which the full list of RTKL exceptions do not apply. However, the court ruled that records containing rates paid by the MCOs to its subcontractors were protected by the confidential proprietary information and trade secret exception of the RTKL. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Pennsylvania State Police did not need to disclose a list of all of the state's accredited police officers because it could not determine which of those officers is working undercover without contacting more than 1,100 municipal departments to compile that information. Therefore, the Court held that the requested information is not subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry, and Tourism was not an agency and was not subject to the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that a Right to Know Law request is not disruptive merely because a person previously made the same request and the government agency has a small part-time staff. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that when an agency fails to respond to a Right to Know Law request within the time mandated under the law, the agency still may argue that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under the RTKL if the requester files an appeal. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that records received by the secretary of education as a member of the Penn State University Board of Trustees are considered agency records because they are in the possession of the Department of Education and state law requires the secretary to sit on the board.
Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that benefits plans that a government contractor provided to its employees were not subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law, as they did not relate to the government activity performed by the contractor and were not “created, received, or retained” by the government agency. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that records in the possession of former employees of a government agency are not public records under the Right to Know Law because those records are not in the possession, custody, or control of the agency. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Right to Know Law does not exempt from disclosure the governor’s home address or the middle names of employees of the Office of the Governor. The court, however, determined that government-issued cell phone numbers of Office of the Governor employees need not be disclosed pursuant to the RTKL’s personal identification information exemption. Read More…

In a case involving a Right to Know Law request for state Senate legal bills, the Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege generally does not protect client identities or descriptions of services in legal invoices. The court also ruled that an agency’s failure to raise certain reasons for denying a RTKL request in its original denial letter does not always bar it from raising those reasons at the first level of appeal. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court required the disclosure of the home addresses of the lieutenant governor and another employee of that office, stating that home addresses are protected by neither the Pennsylvania Constitution nor the personal security exemption of the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that, although an entry on the governor's calendar may be exempt from disclosure pursuant to the exemption for internal predecisional deliberations, the entries at issue must be disclosed because the affidavit submitted by the Governor’s Office in support of redacting the entries was insufficiently detailed to carry his burden of proof. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that there is no constitutional right to privacy in one’s home address. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed this ruling. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that documents pertaining a law enforcement agency's relocation of a witness through the witness protection program are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law due to the potential threat to the witness’ life and safety. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that, in the case of inmate transfer records, Department of Corrections employees’ identities were exempt under the Right to Know Law’s personal security exemption. The court also held that the department had not met its burden of establishing that records about the inmates and the logistics of the transfer were exempt under the public safety exemption, but permitted the Department to supplement the record to provide additional evidence within 60 days. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court declared that an agency must respond to a Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) request within five business days of the date the agency’s open records officer actually receives the request, not the date it is first received by the agency. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that the information contained in state-issued driver’s licenses and photo identification cards is protected from public inspection under Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Code and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”). Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that because a contractor’s employees’ names, dates of birth, and hiring dates were not directly related to its performance of services for a government agency, those records were not subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

In affirming a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court determined that an agency can redact portions of a termination letter sent to an agency employee to the extent those portions do not reflect the termination itself. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) request by a prothonotary because prothonotaries are considered judicial agencies and are subject to a separate appeals process under the Law. Read More…

The Supreme Court held that the requirement that coroners release cause and manner of death records under the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) does not conflict with the Coroner’s Act. Consequently, coroners are required to release copies of cause and manner of death records within the time established by the RTKL and are permitted to charge the fees assessed under the Coroner’s Act. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that records of grievances filed under a labor-management agreement between the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority and various unions are not exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law’s exceptions for records related to agency employee grievance materials and non-criminal investigations. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) and denied the disclosure of License Inspection Summaries (“LIS”) of the Department of Public Welfare (“DPW”). The court ruled that a requester cannot request a different document from the one originally requested during the appeal process. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (“DVRPC”) is not a commonwealth agency and, as a result, is not subject to the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”). Read More…

The Commonwealth Court affirmed an order of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) compelling the Department of Environmental Protection to disclose information from one of its databases. In affirming the order, the court held that (1) retrieving information from a database is not the same as creating a new record; and (2) disclosing information about third parties in the database did not implicate the Right to Know Law’s personal security exemption because the department specifically told people that the information submitted to it would be public. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the denial of a request for police policies concerning the use of confidential informants under the Right to Know Law’s (“RTKL”) public safety exception. The court determined that disclosure of the records could hinder criminal apprehension efforts, jeopardize the personal safety of many individuals, and deter potential informants from coming forward. Read More…

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania permitted the Pennsylvania State Education Association (“PSEA”) to proceed with a lawsuit against the Office of Open Records (“OOR”). In the suit, the PSEA seeks to block the OOR from ordering the disclosure of home addresses for teachers and other public education employees under the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”). Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) does not have jurisdiction under the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) to compel the disclosure of records in the city solicitor’s office related to a pending litigation. To allow the OOR such jurisdiction would infringe upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s sole jurisdiction over the practice of law in the state. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that a request for county emails was insufficiently specific because it did not provide a specific timeframe, identify individual senders or recipients, or specify county departments that might have the requested email. The court explained that the request was overly broad even though it sought emails to and from five domains and identified key terms in the emails, as the terms were too broad and did not provide any context with which to limit the county’s search for responsive records. Read More…

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the records of a private government contractor performing government functions on behalf of a government agency, in this case a private contractor’s records relating to bids to run the concessions at a county-owned stadium, are subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. The court defined “government function” as any “non-ancillary undertaking of government” — a definition the court acknowledged was vague and would be clarified in future cases. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court vacated a final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) that had required the governor to release complete copies of his calendar entries. The court sent the case back to the OOR to review the calendar entries to determine whether they were exempt under the Right to Know Law’s exception for documents that reflect predecisional deliberations. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that a request for records under the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) is sufficiently specific if it requests a “clearly-defined universe of documents,” regardless of how many documents that universe may contain. The Court also ruled that any agency receiving a request for records under the RTKL must undertake a physical search for the requested records. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that a judge’s decision in a federal case to not compel disclosure of records in civil discovery did not prevent an attorney from obtaining those same records through a Right to Know Law (RTKL) request. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the calendars of the mayor of Philadelphia and city council members were exempt from disclosure under the “working papers” exemption of the Right to Know Law (RTKL). Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that in denying a request for records, an agency can simply cite exemptions to disclosure of the Right to Know Law (RTKL) without explaining how they apply to the request. Because the requester in this case did not state why the requested records were public records and did not address the various asserted exemptions, he could not meet his burden to gain access to the requested records. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court decided that the character of a record — either a public document or a record exempt from the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) — does not change simply because an agency previously released some of the requested information to a third party. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court decided that, within reason, any written request for records to an agency employee suffices for a Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) request. As a result, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board was wrong to ignore the requester’s e-mail simply because he did not specifically reference the RTKL or use a specific form. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court vacated a final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) that had required the governor to release complete copies of his calendar entries. The court sent the case back to the OOR to review the calendar entries to determine whether they were exempt under the Right to Know Law’s exception for documents that reflect predecisional deliberations. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that resolutions discussed at an agency’s public planning meeting are not considered drafts, do not reflect internal predecisional deliberations, and therefore must be disclosed under the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”). Read More…

The Commonwealth Court reversed an Office of Open Records (“OOR”) final determination, denying the disclosure of records relative to the gas pipes of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) because the records qualified for the noncriminal investigation exemption of the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”). Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that an agency must issue a final response to a Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) request within the time limits established under the law and cannot refuse to provide requested documents because the requester has not paid for records he previously requested. In addition, the court ruled that an agency can waive the attorney-client privilege by failing to raise it as a ground for denying a RTKL request. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that a request for the dates of birth of all of a county’s employees are exempt under the personal security exemption of the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) in light of a demonstrated risk of identity theft. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) by holding that requested records were exempt from disclosure because they were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide on an appeal of an Office of Open Records (“OOR”) final determination even though the OOR, not the party seeking records, was named appellee. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court vacated a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) for lack of jurisdiction in a case arising from a request for records involving the liquidation of an insurance company. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that a request seeking “all correspondence … concerning” a mortgage restructuring and workout project “and, or distributed to the Board” was insufficiently specific, finding that the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) lacks statutory authority to narrow the scope of the request so that it becomes sufficiently specific. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court reversed an Office of Open Records (“OOR”) determination and ruled that W-2 forms were exempt from disclosure because they are protected by a federal statute. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the records of a charter school were public records because they directly related to the government function served by the company. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) requires agencies to provide access to emails to or from government employees when those employees are acting in their official capacities. Agencies, however, can withhold emails that concern employees’ private activities. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court reversed a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) and ruled that a requestor cannot change its Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) request during the appeals process. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that, under the facts presented in this case, the state properly denied a request for the birthdates of all Pennsylvania state employees under the Right to Know Law’s personal security exemption. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that an agency can meet its burden under the Right to Know Law by submitting an affidavit from its open records officer stating that the requested record does not exist. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that tax returns and tax return information, which are confidential under federal law, are not subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that documents pertaining to Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission employees’ use of E-ZPass transponders are not public records under the Right to Know Law because the records contain information that is confidential under the Pennsylvania Transportation Act. The court also ruled that the agency could not provide additional information to the court that it had not presented to the Office of Open Records in response to the initial appeal. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that an agency properly denied access to requested records held by a government contractor because the requestor did not pay the agency’s fee for copying the records. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that if a person who claims that a Right to Know Law request was denied improperly, that person must follow the appeal procedures in the law and cannot file a separate lawsuit seeking to obtain the documents. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that: (1) meeting minutes for the board of directors of a private non-profit are not public records under the Right to Know Law even though a government official appointed a member to the board; (2) a second request for the same records is not a disruptive request under the law, even if an agency faces budgetary constraints and the request consumes attorney and staff time; and (3) the Office of Open Records should have conducted a hearing to determine whether records were protected by the law’s exemption for confidential proprietary information. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that certified payroll records received by an agency from a private contractor but no longer in the possession of the agency qualified as public records. Therefore, the court said, they must be turned over to the requestor. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the Office of Open Records can rule on a requester’s appeal of an agency’s denial of a Right to Know Law request only if the requester’s written appeal has addressed each of the agency’s reasons for denying the request. Read More…

Sherry v. Radnor Township School District
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 265, C.D. 2010
April 4, 2011

The Commonwealth Court ruled that honor code violations of students were exempt from disclosure under the noncriminal investigation exemption of the Right to Know Law and under the federal law governing student privacy, even though the requested records did not identify specific students.

The court also held that a requester could not depose agency officials to try to establish that records are public under the law.

Background

Judy Sherry submitted a RTKL request for records to the Radnor Township School District seeking Academic Honor Code violation reports from the district with identifying information removed.

The district denied the request, claiming the records were covered by the RTKL’s noncriminal investigations exemption and by the federal Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a law that makes education records private.

Sherry appealed to the Office of Open Records, which affirmed the denial based on two affidavits submitted by district officials

Ultimately, after the trial court refused to allow Sherry’s lawyer to depose or cross-examine the officials who submitted the affidavits, Sherry appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

Commonwealth Court Decision

The Commonwealth Court ruled that an “investigation” is “a systematic or searching inquiry, a detailed examination, or an official probe.”

Here, the requested records were created as part of official probes of alleged student misconduct and were “forms upon which violations are noted and contain a description of the violative conduct, witness/teacher statements, and the course and result of the investigation.”

Consequently, the court concluded that the records related to an investigation and thus were covered by the RTKL’s non-criminal investigation exception.

The court also ruled that the records were exempt under federal law, which protects “personally identifiable information,” including any “information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student.”

Here, according to the court, the district’s affidavits showed that it might be possible to identify students from the requested records, even though the request sought to have the records be “de-identified.” As a result, the court held that the release of the records would violate federal law.

Finally, the court ruled that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow Sherry to depose or cross-examine the two district officials who submitted affidavits.

The court explained that “neither the RTKL nor the courts have extended a right to discovery . . . to a requesting party in a RTKL action.”

• April 4, 2011 — Commonwealth Court Opinion — No. 265, C.D. 2010

The Commonwealth Court ruled that destination addresses in 911 time response logs are not exempt under the Right to Know Law, and counties must provide cross-street information about the location to which emergency responders were dispatched. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that a county court has discretion over whether to allow a government contractor to participate in an appeal from an Office of Open Records decision concerning its records.

The court also ruled that more information was needed to determine whether records showing the names, birth dates, and hire dates of the contractor’s employees directly related to its performance of a government contract. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that real estate tax records held by a township’s tax collector were not in the possession of the township and thus were not subject to the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that an agency’s open records officer cannot waive the agency’s attorney-client privilege by unilaterally deciding to release privileged records. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that an agency is not required to provide access to records merely because those records are under its “control.” Only records that are in the agency’s possession – or that are held by a government contractor and directly relate to a government function – can be considered “public records” under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that emails on the personal computer or in the personal email account of a public official are not considered records of an agency under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the State Employees’ Retirement System could not charge a requestor for labor costs it incurred in complying with her request. The Court also held that the Office of Open Records has the authority to establish duplication fees. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that safety studies and information used in preparing those studies is exempt from public access under Pennsylvania law, but the Right to Know Law requires the Department of Transportation to provide access to sight distance measurements and traffic studies that are not used in safety studies. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the final arbitration awards and orders in union grievance matters are subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law, so long as information is redacted if it is covered by the Law’s exemptions. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that the price a third-party contactor paid for items it resold to inmates in prison commissaries under a contract with the Department of Corrections was outside the scope of its contracted work and thus was not subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that incident reports of the Pennsylvania State Police are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law’s criminal investigation exemption. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that notes, witness statements, and other materials related to Department of Health nursing home licensing inspections are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law’s noncriminal investigation exemption. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that emails sent to and from a court employee were not subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law because the Law provides that only financial records of judicial agencies are accessible to the public, even if the records are stored on computers owned by the county and not the court.
Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that a Pennsylvania State Police report showing the arrival and departure times of police executing a search warrant was a criminal investigative record and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law (RTKL). Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that disclosure of the “Supervision Strategies” section of the chapter on Sex Offender Supervision Protocol in the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s manual could threaten public safety. Therefore, that section is exempt from disclosure under the public safety exception of the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Office of Open Records does not have the authority to rewrite a requestor’s Right to Know Law request in considering an appeal. The court also ruled that a request for “any and all records, files... or communications of any kind” was insufficiently specific. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court determined that fundraising records of a foundation established solely to raise funds for a state-owned university are accessible to the public under the Right to Know Law because the records are directly related to the government function performed by the foundation. The court also ruled that the Office of Open Records has no standing to participate as a party in appeals of its decisions. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the certified payroll records of government contractors were publicly accessible under the Right to Know Law. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court ruled that complaints initiating property enforcement actions, including the names of the people who made the complaints, are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law’s noncriminal investigation exception. Read More…

When a person asks an agency to waive its fees in responding to a RTKL request, the agency must provide a non-discriminatory reason if its denied the request. If the agency asks a requester to pay the duplication cost up front because the estimated cost of complying with the request is greater than $100, the agency must explain how it estimated the copying costs. Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that the Right to Know Law does not supersede state regulations in place when the General Assembly passed the RTKL.
Read More…

The Commonwealth Court held that when responding to a Right to Know Law request, an agency is not required to create a record that does not exist.
Read More…