Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
In Frank Curry and FOIABuddy v. South Western School District, AP 2024-1311, a school district (“District”) received a request for records related to IT operations, contracts, staff, and IT budget from Frank Curry and FOIABuddy (“Requester”). The District denied the Requests, notifying the Requester that they had
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
Case Overview
In Forrest v. Erie City, AP 2023-1701 (Sept. 28, 2023), Erie City responded to a request for a list of all rental properties registered and licensed in the City in an Excel spreadsheet by providing a PDF conversion of the Excel spreadsheet. On appeal, the Requester argued
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
In the summer of 2022, the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) announced that it was moving forward with an E-File Appeal Portal. The goal was to provide a one-stop location for all records involving appeals. On July 31, 2023, the OOR fully implemented the E-File Portal. With limited exceptions,
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
In Seman v. Baldwin Borough, AP 2023-00778, the Requester sought legal invoices related to a specific project. In responding to the Request, the Borough completely redacted entries in the legal invoices that were not related to the project identified in the Request (i.e., non responsive entries) but
Christopher L. Voltz, cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5508
In Beckes v. North East School District, AP 2022-2826, the OOR determined that the attachments to two emails from the District Solicitor to the District were protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. 65 P.S. §67.305(a)(2).
For the attorney-client privilege to
Christopher L. Voltz, cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
Methacton Sch. Dist. v. Off. of Open Records of Cmmw., 250 C.D. 2021, 2021 WL 6122163, at *1 (Pa. Cmmw. Dec. 28, 2021). The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania holds that a request for the emails of four individuals over a short timeframe is sufficiently specific under Section 703
Christopher L. Voltz, cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
Chester Water Authority v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Community and Economic Development, 249 A.3d 1106, 1108 (Pa. 2021), reargument denied (June 17, 2021). Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that communications between an agency and its private contractors are not internal to the agency and, therefore, cannot be exempt from disclosure under the
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
Section 708(b)(10)(i)(A) of the Law, which excepts from the general requirement for disclosure of public records:
A record that reflects:
(A) The internal, predecisional deliberations of an agency, its members, employees or officials or predecisional deliberations between agency members, employees or officials and members, employees or officials of another
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., (412) 594-5580, cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com
Highlands School District v. Rittmeyer, — A.3d –, 2020 WL 7061810, 163 C.D. 2020 (Pa. Commw. Dec. 3, 2020). Commonwealth Court holds that school districts are not required to disclose the names of employees when issuing a statement of charges or in response to a request for records
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., (412) 594-5580, cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com
As an elected school board member, you are looked to as a community leader and are expected to take a leadership role in representing your school district’s interests. In fulfilling this role, many school board members communicate with colleagues, district employees, and members of the public via email,
