rtkl exception in Pennsylvania

2025Pennsylvanians for Union Reform v. Pa. Off. of Admin., 129 A.3d 1246 , 1251 n.12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); see also McKelvey v. Pa. Dep’t of Health, 255 A.3d 385 , 409 (Pa. 2021) (affirming this Court’s refusal to permit a party to introduce “supplemental evidence or to remand to OOR to reopen the record” because, inter alia, allowing a party to “introduce new evidence at later stages of the proceedings” “undercuts the RTKL’s goals”); Highmark Inc. v. Voltz, 163 A.3d 485, 491 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (en banc) (declining, in resolving an RTKL issue, to review a party’s “additional evidence as factfinder,

2020Co., 911 A.2d at 1027 ). 11 However, only public documents are subject to the redaction requirements of the RTKL. “[T]he RTKL’s presumption of public access does not apply to privileged records and the RTKL does not give agencies the discretion to disclose privileged records.” Heavens, 65 A.3d at 1077 .

2020Co., 911 A.2d at 1027 ). 11 However, only public documents are subject to the redaction requirements of the RTKL. “[T]he RTKL’s presumption of public access does not apply to privileged records and the RTKL does not give agencies the discretion to disclose privileged records.” Heavens, 65 A.3d at 1077 .

2020“Furthermore, under the RTKL, records that are exempt under Section 708 or privileged are not considered public records and are therefore not subject to the redaction requirement contained in Section 706, which applies only to records that are public and contain information that is not subject to access.” Id. (citing Section 706 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.706, & Saunders v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 48 A.3d 540, 543 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)).

2020As the Commonwealth Court noted in Center Township, “in camera review provides an essential check against the possibility that a privilege may be abused.” 95 A.3d at 367 . [J-72-2019] - 26 The RTKL requires the Commonwealth Court to document findings of fact to support its ruling.

2020As the Commonwealth Court noted in Center Township, “in camera review provides an essential check against the possibility that a privilege may be abused.” 95 A.3d at 367 . [J-72-2019] - 26 The RTKL requires the Commonwealth Court to document findings of fact to support its ruling.

2019In this context, we define a preponderance as "a more likely than not inquiry." Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte , 202 A.3d 173 , 180 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).

2019In this context, we define a preponderance as "a more likely than not inquiry." Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte , 202 A.3d 173 , 180 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).

2017In Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), Michael Moore, like Petitioner an inmate confined in the State Correctional Institution at Dallas (SCI-Dallas), appealed to this Court from a final determination issued by OOR that concluded the Department was not required to take further action on Mr. Moore’s request because the Department had demonstrated that a record of Mr. Moore’s “Judgement of Sentence,” did not exist in its possession, custody or control.

2017See, e.g., Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Wright, 147 A.3d 978 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (party with confidential proprietary interest in financial submission appealed, and established RTKL exception applied); Dep’t of Corr. v. Maulsby, 121 A.3d 585 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (remanding to OOR to allow third party to participate and challenge release of confidential proprietary information); see also Allegheny Cnty.

2017See, e.g., Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Wright, 147 A.3d 978 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (party with confidential proprietary interest in financial submission appealed, and established RTKL exception applied); Dep’t of Corr. v. Maulsby 121 A.3d 585 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (remanding to OOR to allow third party to participate and challenge release of confidential proprietary information); see also Allegheny Cnty.

2015Ali maintains that the trial court was also required to apply Section 1304(b) of the RTKL to his claim 5 “Because this case presents no factual dispute, our review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, committed any error of law or violated any constitutional rights.” SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 999 A.2d 672 , 674 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), aff’d, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012). 4 for attorneys’ fees, and, in failing to do so, the trial court erred.

2015Ali maintains that the trial court was also required to apply Section 1304(b) of the RTKL to his claim 5 “Because this case presents no factual dispute, our review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, committed any error of law or violated any constitutional rights.” SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 999 A.2d 672 , 674 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), aff’d, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012). 4 for attorneys’ fees, and, in failing to do so, the trial court erred.

2014Id.

2014In deciding the records were not trade secrets, OOR relied on this Court’s holding in Lukes v. Department of Public Welfare, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009), which was decided under the prior Right-to-Know Law (Prior Law). 9 The direct interest participants and DPW appealed to this Court 10 in separate actions. 11 This Court consolidated these appeals because they challenge the same final determination, and raise common legal issues.

2014In deciding the records were not trade secrets, OOR relied on this Court’s holding in Lukes v. Department of Public Welfare, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009), which was decided under the prior Right-to-Know Law (Prior Law). 9 The direct interest participants and DPW appealed to this Court 10 in separate actions. 11 This Court consolidated these appeals because they challenge the same final determination, and raise common legal issues.

2014Cf. Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (en banc) (incorporation of the privilege into the RTKL exception obviates the need to analyze the deliberative process privilege separately from the predecisional deliberative exception).

2014Cf. Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (en banc) (incorporation of the privilege into the RTKL exception obviates the need to analyze the deliberative process privilege separately from the predecisional deliberative exception).

2011Hearst Television, Inc. v. Norris, 8 A.3d 420 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010).

2011Hearst Television, Inc. v. Norris, 8 A.3d 420 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010).