In this case, the Commonwealth Court was asked to apply the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) and determine whether financial information contained in contracts between state agencies and outside vendors is excluded from disclosure through RTKL requests. In reversing the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) final determination, the Court concluded that such information was specifically excluded under § 708(b)(26) and could be redacted by the responding state agency.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Tag: Right to Know Law (RTKL) (Page 2 of 2)
This Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) dispute involved fourteen consolidated cases. Fourteen State System of Higher Education Universities (the Universities) appealed from an Office of Open Records (OOR) final determination that granted two requesters access to records related to the Universities’ budgets and finances. The Commonwealth Court was required to address (1) whether the requests were specific enough to enable the Universities to locate responsive records, (2) whether the large number of records requested made the request non-specific, and (3) whether the Universities should be given more time to review the records due to the large number of records requested. The court held that an agency is not relieved of its duty to produce responsive records due to the size of the request, but an agency may be granted a time extension by the OOR if the agency can show that more time is truly needed for proper review.
In this Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) case the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on situations where one agency holds a record containing information about another agency or another agency’s personnel, and who may decide to release or withhold such information if requested under the RTKL. Specifically addressing bills for the cellphones of several judges that were paid for by the county government, the court determined a RTKL request for these records must be directed to the respective judicial agency to determine whether to release the records.
This case presents a matter of first impression regarding the timeframe within which an agency may demand prepayment under § 1307(h) of the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). The court found that while a prepayment demand does not have to be made in an agency’s first response to a RTKL request, it can only be made after a full legal review has been completed.
In a recent split decision, the Commonwealth Court ruled that a public agency can deny the duplication of certain copyrighted materials requested under the Right to Know Law (RTKL). However, the agency must make those materials available for public inspection, absent some other exemption, because they still constitute public records under the RTKL.
The Commonwealth Court recently held that there is no blanket exemption for “Mobile Video Recordings” (MVRs) of traffic stops under the Right to Know Law’s (RTKL) “criminal investigation” exemption and that videos of stops that result in no traffic citation are not exempt from disclosure.
Published By:
