In the matter of Fein v. Chester County, OOR Docket No.: AP 2023-2043 (Sept. 26, 2023), the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) considered an appeal from the denial by Chester County of a request to provide unredacted copies of absentee-ballot information and mail-in ballots, files, applications for ballots and envelopes available, consistent with the access provisions of the Election Code. The eight page decision of the OOR explains why the redactions were not justified by either the Election Code or the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law. See 65 P.S. §§ 67.101, et seq. The County appealed the OOR dec ..read more

The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas recently affirmed a Determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) to withhold documents that the court held were subject to the attorney/client privilege and the work-product doctrine.  See Cortes v. Middletown Township, et al., 110 Delaware County Reports 35 (Jan. 25, 2023). Brief Background Facts: This case involves multiple requests under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law seeking documents from Middletown Township about communications between the township and companies constructing a pipeline through the township.  The companies whose ..read more

A recent decision is noteworthy for clarifying why the affidavit of a RTK Officer was not sufficient to carry the burden of the township to demonstrate an exemption based on a non-criminal investigation. In  Middletown Township v. Cortes and Energy Transfer, 109 Del. County 1 (2021),  which was published in the current issue of the Delaware County Bar Association Journal, the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas affirmed in part a decision of the Office of Open Records that required the township to produce records of communications with a pipeline company and their lawyers. No asser ..read more

In the recent OOR determination in the matter of Zaid v. Upland Borough, OOR Dkt. AP 2021-2961 (Dec. 29, 2021), an appeal was rejected as premature in light of not taking into account the days that the government agency was closed due to the Christmas holiday. Thus, the agency’s 5-day period to respond had not expired at the time of the appeal. But the decision allowed for a new appeal to be filed at the appropriate time ..read more

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently imposed fines for the bad faith response to a right-to-know request under the PA RTK law in the case styled: California University of Pennsylvania v. Bradshaw, 1491 C.D. 2018. The court also imposed the maximum statutory penalties. This is one of only a few cases in the 12-year history of the RTK law in which a court has imposed a penalty of fees for bad faith. The PA Office of Open Records has a helpful summary of the case on its website ..read more

This synopsis was prepared by Pennsylvania attorney Catherine Olanich Raymond. In a Final Determination entered on June 24, 2021, the OOR found that the Pennsylvania Department of Health (“DOH”) did not successfully prove that “records related to the investigation and tracking of personal protective equipment (“PPE”)” are confidential and protected from disclosure under the Disease Prevention and Control Law (“DPCL”). Todd Shepherd and Broad + Liberty v. Pennsylvania Department of Health, Dkt. No. AP 2021-0863 (June 24, 2021). The Request was accordingly granted in part and dismissed as moot i ..read more

This synopsis was prepared by Pennsylvania attorney Catherine Olanich Raymond. In a Final Determination entered on June 4, 2021, the OOR found that a request for “the names, ranks, and badge numbers” of all SEPTA police officers who asked for time off on January 6, 2021, was protected from disclosure by the right to privacy established by the Pennsylvania Constitution. Michael Mellon and the Defender Association of Philadelphia v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Dkt. No. AP 2021-0465 (June 4, 2021). Background and Facts: On January 15, 2021, Michael Mellon, Esq. and the Def ..read more

This synopsis was prepared by Pennsylvania attorney Catherine Olanich Raymond. In a Final Determination entered on May 14, 2021, the OOR dismissed a RTKL Request for certain voter registration information because that information is expressly made available through the Pennsylvania Voter Registration Act; thus, its disclosure may not be sought under the RTKL. Michael Sheliga v. Pennsylvania Department of State, Dkt. No. AP 2021-0462 (May 14, 2021). Background and Facts: On January 22, 2021, the Requester submitted a Request to the Pennsylvania Department of State (“Department”) for “[e]lectron ..read more

This synopsis was prepared by Pennsylvania attorney Catherine Olanich Raymond. In a Final Determination entered on April 15, 2021, the OOR found that a request for e-mails to and from a number of agency staff or officials involving a large number of different subject matter terms, to be insufficiently specific, and that the Pennsylvania Department of Health (“Department”) was not required to respond to it. Carter Walker and LNP Media v. Pennsylvania Department of Health, Dkt. No. AP 2021-0460 (Apr. 15, 2021). Background and Facts: On February 2, 2021, Carter Walker and LNP Media (“Requesters ..read more

This synopsis was prepared by Pennsylvania attorney Catherine Olanich Raymond. On February 26, 2021, the OOR entered a Final Determination holding that responsive documents in the possession of a company hired by a Commonwealth agency to “perform a governmental function on behalf of the agency” are producible under Section 506 (d) of the RTKL. Tim Wachter v. Pennsylvania of State, OOR Dkt. No. AP 2021-0292 (Feb. 26, 2021). The relevant “governmental function” in this case was the Department’s dissemination of messages encouraging people to vote and register to vote. Background and Facts: On No ..read more