The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a court reviewing a final determination of the Office of Open Records need not defer to the OOR’s decision in considering whether an agency properly denied a Right to Know Law request. Instead, courts should broadly review the OOR’s factual findings and legal conclusions, and courts can consider evidence that was not submitted to the OOR in making their decisions. 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 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 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 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 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 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…