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 decision, but there was an issue about whether they appealed within the deadline of “30-days of the mailing date.”  On Feb. 15, 2024, there was a hearing in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on the issue of whether or not the appeal by the County was timely, and the court asked the parties to submit written legal arguments. (A judge from another county was tasked with hearing the case.)

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 communications with the township were sought had entered into an agreement pursuant to the Common Interest Doctrine to coordinate their resources to protect their common interests.

Legal Analysis:

The court explained the Common Interest Doctrine and how it applied to extend the attorney-client privilege with respect to the records that were withheld by the township.  The court referred to Pennsylvania cases upholding the Common Interest Doctrine where the parties share a substantially similar legal interest.  The Common Interest Doctrine allows various parties to retain separate legal counsel while at the same time protecting their common interests.  The four elements that need to be shown by a party asserting the doctrine were discussed in Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Sunrise Energy LLC, 177 A.3d 348, 445-46 (Pa. Cmwlth 2018).

The court also explained why the work-product doctrine was an independent basis for certain records to be withheld.  The court provided citations to extensive authority explaining that well-established doctrine.

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. Co. Rep. 1 (2021), which was published in the February 18, 2022 issue of the Delaware County Legal 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 assertion of attorney/client privilege was made.


  • The court’s decision began with the basic principle undergirding the Right to Know Law that it is premised on the presumption that public records must be accessible for inspection and copying by anyone requesting them unless the records fall within specifically enumerated exceptions or are privileged–and the government agency has the burden to establish an exemption.
  • One of the key issues in this case was whether the “non-criminal investigation” exception applied to the request for records. The township based its argument for this exemption on an affidavit from the township’s RTK Officer. But the court held that the affidavit did not suffice to carry the township’s burden to establish an exemption because it was conclusory and not adequately detailed. For example, it failed to relate the records in the exemption log to any non-criminal investigation. The affidavit merely tracked the language of the statute without explaining why the records at issue were exempt from disclosure.
  • The court also rejected the argument that it did not balance the impact of releasing the records with the right of access to that information.

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.

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.

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 in part.

Background and Facts: On March 19, 2021, Todd Shepherd and Broad + Liberty (collectively “Requester”) filed a Request with DOH seeking a copy of “any and all documents that record and/or track the identification, and/or the acquisition, and/or the purchase, and/or the distribution of … PPE by the … Department … for those documents created, received, and/or edited between the dates of March 1, 2020 to March 15, 2021….” Slip op. at 2. The Request specifically states that PPE includes gloves, masks, hand sanitizer, face shields and medical gowns used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. DOH obtained a 30-day extension of time in which to respond, and on April 26, 2021 denied the Request on the grounds that the responsive records are confidential under the DPCL. DOH also argued that the records are protected under RTKL Section 708 because they relate to a noncriminal investigation and contain personal health and identification information, slip op. at 2, and also because their disclosure would threaten personal security and public safety, id.

On April 28, 2021, the Requester appealed to the OOR. On May 28, 2021, DOH submitted a position statement, repeating its arguments that the records requested are confidential under the DPCL and that their disclosure would threaten public safety. The statement was supported with affidavits from Dr. Sharon Watkins, State Epidemiologist and DOH’s Director of the Bureau of Epidemiology, and from Andrew Pickett, Director of DOH’s Bureau of Emergency Preparedness and Response. DOH also provided records responsive to the part of the Request seeking information about the acquisition and purchase of PPE. The Requester provided no additional evidence on appeal.

Analysis and Holding: OOR’s analysis began with the principle that a record in the possession of a Commonwealth agency such as DOH is presumed to be public, and disclosable upon a RTKL request, unless exempted by a provision of RTKL or other law, or protected by a privilege, judicial order or decree. RTKL Section 708 places the burden of proving an exemption upon the agency.

After holding that the appeal was moot as to the records of the acquisition and purchase of PPE, OOR explained why the remainder of the requested records are protected from disclosure. The DPCL protects records of reports of disease. DOH argued that it also protects “records maintained as a result of any action taken in consequence of reports of diseases pursuant to the DPCL,” slip op. at 5 (emphasis in original). While OOR agreed that was true, it found that the Request in issue was not seeking records of action taken in consequence of reports of diseases.

“Rather, the Request is seeking records ‘that record and/or track the identification, … and/or the distribution of … PPE.’ It is certainly not disputed that COVID-19 is a reportable disease under the DPCL. However, the Department is attempting to correlate anything related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the identification and distribution of PPE, to the confidentiality provisions of the DPCL, no matter how attenuated the link may be.” Slip op. at 7-8.

OOR concluded that DOH’s affidavits did not contain any specific statements or information that demonstrated that DPCL protected records of the identification and/or distribution of PPE.

Finally, OOR concluded that DOH’s affidavits also fail to show a threat to public safety from disclosure of the requested information. Though DOH provided evidence that a few thefts of PPE had occurred, it did not provide sufficient evidence to show that disclosure of documents “that record and/or track the identification … and/or the distribution of … PPE between the dates of March 1, 2020 to March 15, 2021” would be reasonably likely to threaten DOH’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Slip op. at 11. Accordingly, it ordered disclosure of those responsive records that had not yet been produced.

Bottom Line: Shepherd shows the importance of reading potentially applicable statutes as written when crafting a RTKL request. The DPCL protects reports of disease, not reports of all things that may be useful in controlling the spread of disease, such as the PPE referenced in the Request, and thus did not protect the records in question from disclosure.

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 Defender Association of Philadelphia (collectively “Requester”) submitted a Right to Know Law Request to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) seeking “the names, ranks, and badge numbers” of all SEPTA police officers who asked for time off on January 6, 2021–the day a crowd entered the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. Slip op. at 2, 6.

On March 1, 2021, after receiving several extensions of time to respond, SEPTA denied the Request on the ground that it relates to a noncriminal investigation and was protected by Section 708 (b)(17)(vi) of the RTKL. OOR invited both parties to supplement the record. On March 17, 2021, SEPTA submitted a position statement and a supporting affidavit and reasserted its grounds for denial. SEPTA characterized the requested information as an investigative record that, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Additional supporting information and argument were submitted by the Requester and SEPTA on March 29, 2021 and June 1, 2021, respectively.

Analysis and Holding: OOR began by stating the objective of the RTKL, which is to “empower citizens by affording them access to information concerning the activities of their government.” Slip op. at 3 (quoting SWB Yankees L.L.C. v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029, 1041 (Pa. 2012)). By providing such access, RTKL makes it possible for citizens to scrutinize the actions of public officials and hold them accountable for those actions. Id. (quoting Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813, 824 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010), aff’d, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013)).

Next, OOR eliminated the argument that the requested information relates to a noncriminal investigation. It observed that all of the requested information is available on routinely kept assignment sheets, which include information about all officers in SEPTA’s police force. Therefore, the information in question “exists in the normal course of business outside of whether a noncriminal investigation took place.” Slip op. at 4.

Finally, OOR reached the question of whether the requested information is protected by the right to privacy. Where requested information implicates personal information that is not expressly exempt from disclosure under the RTKL, OOR must balance the individual’s privacy interest in the information against any public benefit that would be gained from disclosure. OOR has previously found information similar to the “names, ranks, and badge numbers” sought by the Requester to be personal information. Moreover, Commonwealth Court precedent confirms that personal information about agency employees does not reveal anything significant about the workings of government agencies such as SEPTA. Slip op. at 5 (citing cases).

After reviewing the information at issue in this case in light of such prior authority, OOR found that the private interest of the SEPTA officers was greater than any public interest, and denied the Requester’s appeal.

Bottom Line: Mellon illuminates the difference between whether information about persons engaged in law enforcement is disclosable or protected. That difference lies in whether the requested information does, or does not, contribute to governmental accountability. Information about when particular agency employees wished to take personal time “invites only speculation as to the private actions of agency employees,” slip op. at 7, and tells us nothing about the operation of government or of an agency such as SEPTA.

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]lectronic copies of voting data from [the] last election….including:

1. County data broken down by precinct….
2. Data for each type of voting location by day.
(a) How many people voted by mail each day (by county and/or precinct if such
data exists.)…
(b) How many people voted Early In Person by day (by county and/or office/satellite office)…
3. Registration data for each precinct….
4. Any other election data that your data folks would have handy with similar stats.

Slip op. at 2. The Department extended its time to respond by thirty days on January 29, 2021. On March 1, 2021, the Department sought an additional extension. When the Requester did not grant that extension, the Request was deemed denied. The Requester appealed to OOR on March 8, 2021.

On March 26, 2021, the Department submitted a position statement with a supporting affidavit, stating that the information sought in items 2 and 3 of the Request are available through the Pennsylvania Voter Registration Act (“PVRA”) and the Department’s regulations relating to that Act. The Requester responded that “any offer to provide a ‘Full Voter Export’ does not meet [the] [R]equest” because it doesn’t include “precinct voting totals or precinct registration data.” The parties maintained these respective positions throughout the appeal. During the appeal proceedings, the Department stated that portions of responsive records are available through the Commonwealth’s open data portal, and provided the Requester with the URL to that portal. In turn, the Requester withdrew items 1 and 4 of his Request.

Analysis and Holding: In its Final Determination, OOR concluded that, by providing the URL to the open data portal, the Department provided some of the records requested in items 2(a) and 3 of the Request. It also found that the Department submitted an affidavit proving that there are no records responsive to item 2(b) of the Request, and that the Department’s affidavit was sufficient to sustain its burden of proof because the Requester did not provide competent evidence of bad faith on the Department’s part. See slip op. at 6.

With regard to item 3, OOR found that the “registration data for each precinct” that the Requester sought is available under the PVRA. It observed that Commonwealth Court held in Pennsylvanians for Union Reform v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of State, 138 A.3d 717 (Pa. Commw. 2016) that the PVRA and the related Department regulations “comprehensively govern” the accessibility of voter registration information. Slip op. at 7. Because the PVRA comprehensively governs accessibility of voter registration information, the RTKL’s access provisions are superseded and do not apply to this Request. Id.

Bottom Line: Sheliga reminds us that not all public information in the possession of Pennsylvania government agencies must, or indeed can, be requested pursuant to the RTKL. The Voter Registration Act has its own requirements for disclosure of voter registration information to citizens, and the those requirements must be used to obtain such information–not the requirements of the RKTL. Sheliga also notes that a government agency that has placed information on the Internet by creating a web portal or other website may answer a RTKL request for such information merely by providing the Requester with the URL for that website.

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”) submitted a Request to the Pennsylvania Department of Health (“Department”) seeking “correspondence to and from Department officials regarding various COVID-19 related keywords search terms for multiple periods of time encompassing January 22, 2020 through February 2, 2021.” Slip op. at 1. The Request targeted three different Department officials and stated generally that the subject matter of interest “is communications where the COVID-19 virus, the Department of Health’s response to it, Lancaster County’s response to it, testing and vaccination are discussed.” The Request also provided a number of keywords to be searched, including several different synonyms for “COVID-19 test,””COVID-19 vaccine,” “COVID-19” and “COVID deaths,” three different ways to denote the Department, several different hospital names, two different ways to say “long term care,” and the terms “mass vaccination” and “vaccine distribution.”

The Department asked for a 30-day extension in which to respond, and shortly after doing so denied the Request on the ground that it was insufficiently specific to allow the Department to identify the records sought. Requesters appealed.

Analysis and Holding:

In analyzing the specificity of the Request, OOR began by observing that it follows a three-part test set forth by Commonwealth Court. First, the subject matter of the Request “must identify the ‘transaction or activity’ of the agency for which the record is sought.” Slip op. at 7 (citing Pennsylvania Dep’t of Education v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d 1121 (Pa. Commw. 2015). Next, the scope of the Request must identify a discrete group of documents by type, recipient, or some other criterion. Id. Last, but not least, the Request should identify a finite timeframe for which the records are sought. Id. (citing Carey v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections, 61 A.3 d 367 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). However, a request that is sufficiently specific under the other two parts of the test will not necessarily be found to be overly broad, while identification of a short timeframe will not suffice to make an overly broad request specific. Slip op. at 7.

OOR further observed that while a Request may use keywords instead of a subject matter description, a collection of broad keywords does “not provide a sufficient limiting context.” Even broad keywords may be sufficient limitation upon a Request that specifies senders or recipients of e-mails. Slip op. at 8. Here, the keywords in the Request “may pertain to a variety of Department activities….” Slip op. at 9. Because there were no additional parameters limiting the Request at issue to a particular “transaction or activity,” the Department would have had to review all potentially responsive files and make judgments about the relationship of each document to the Request in order to be able to respond. Slip op. at 10. Thus, OOR held that the Department’s denial of the Request was proper.

Bottom Line:

Requesters failed because, in their eagerness to obtain as much information from the Department as possible, they cast their net too broadly. Instead of focusing on COVID testing, or COVID vaccination, or any one of the other topics referenced in their list of keywords, Requesters attempted to craft a Request that would cover all those topics at once. This Walker decision demonstrates that a request using a large number of terms about multiple related but discrete topics is less likely to succeed.

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 November 3, 2020, the Requester submitted a Request to the Pennsylvania Department of State (“Department”) seeking four kinds of records about different kinds of messages encouraging Pennsylvania residents to vote. Items 1 and 2 of the Request were about a media campaign where the Department arranged to have airplanes flying banners with “Return your Ballot” and “Vote Today” messages on them in various parts of the state. In particular, Item 2 sought:

“[a]ll emails or other correspondence, memos or documents which deal with selecting or directing which municipalities, voting districts or areas that the planes are to fly. In other words, document dealing with how the targeted areas were selected?”

Items 3 and 4 were about a mailer that was allegedly sent from VotesPA, with a similar pro-voting theme.

On November 10, 2020, the Department requested a 30-day extension to respond pursuant to RTKL Section 902(b). Thirty days later, the Requester agreed to an additional extension of time until December 14, 2020. Because there was no response by December 14, 2020, the Request was deemed denied.

On December 15, 2020, the Department provided a purchase order issued to Red House Communications, Inc., a vendor it uses for media purchases (“Red House”). The department claimed that any other records relating to Red House’s services as to the airplane campaign were protected from disclosure under RTKL Section 708 (b)(10)(i) because they were “internal, predecisional, and deliberative,” and that there were no responsive documents relating to the VotesPA mailer because the Department did not send it or have it sent.

The Requester appealed, and both parties were given the opportunity to supplement the record. The Department submitted two affidavits in support of its position. The Requester submitted a position statement contending that responsive records in Red House’s possession were producible under RTKL Section 506(d). On February 17, 2021, the Department submitted a supplemental position statement and a copy of a contract between Red House and a company called Van Wagner Aerial Media, LLC (“Van Wagner”), relating to the airplane campaign.

Analysis and Holding: The OOR concluded that the purchase order and Red House/Van Wagner contract were a sufficient response to Item 1, so the appeal was moot to that extent. Similarly, OOR found that the Department met its burden of proving that it had no records responsive to Item 2, because the Department’s records relating to the airplane campaign other than the purchase order and contract were internal, predecisional, and deliberative. Slip op. at 5 (citing and quoting RTKL Section 708 (b)(10)(i)(A). The Department also met its burden as to Items 3 and 4, because its affidavits established that the VotesPA mailer did not come from the Department.

However, OOR agreed with the Requester that documents responsive to Item 2 in the possession of Red House were, for purposes of the RTKL, public records of the Department that had to be produced under RTKL Section 506 (d). Section 506(d) provides in relevant part:

A public record that is not in the possession of an agency but is in the possession
of a party with whom the agency has contracted to perform a governmental function
on behalf of the agency, and which directly relates to the governmental function
and is not exempt under this act, shall be considered a public record of the agency….

Slip op. at 7 (quoting 65 P.S. § 67.506(d)(1)).

For documents in Red House’s possession to be producible under the RKTL, both of the following needed to be true: 1) Red House was performing a governmental function on behalf of the Department, and 2) the documents in question directly relate to Red House’s performance of that governmental function. OOR concluded, without much discussion, that the Department is responsible for regulating voting, which includes both the registration of voters and the sending of messages encouraging people to vote. Thus, dissemination of information that encourages voting is a government function that was delegated to Red House here. Slip op. at 8 (citing generally the Voter Registration Act, 25 Pa. C.S. §§ 1101 et seq.).

With regard to the second factor, documents and information are producible from a contractor performing a governmental function if it has “‘a direct bearing on the third-party contractor’s obligations’ under the contract.” Slip op. at 9. In this case, the records sought from Red House by Item 2 of the Request were not records relating to providing airplanes and banners with messages. The records at issue related to the selection of geographical areas to be targeted with the pro-voting messages, which is an integral part of the Department’s function. “…[T]he Request is related to what was performed and how it was performed; it does not seek information about who performed it.” Slip op. at 10. For those reasons, OOR ordered Item 2 documents in Red House’s possession to be produced, other than documents identified by the Department as “internal, predecisional, and deliberative.” Id.

Bottom Line: Wachter reminds us that one function of RTKL Section 506 (d) is to prevent an agency from inappropriately protecting otherwise producible documents from disclosure by delegating one of its tasks to an independent contractor. If the task performed by the contractor is a “governmental function” of the agency that hires it, a requester may obtain documents relating to that task under the RKTL by requesting them from the agency. (1)


(1)  However, the Final Determination did not cite any particular section
of the Voter Registration Act that requires the Department to
“disseminate information encouraging voter registration and
participation.” See Slip op. at 8.