The Commonwealth Court has consistently frowned on agencies trying to submit new evidence (i.e., evidence not provided to the Office of Open Records) during a Right-to-Know Law appeal.
As a general rule, Courts of Common Pleas have been more accepting of that practice. However, Courts of Common Pleas are not required to accept such evidence. In one recent case (OOR Dkt. No.: AP 2019-1228), Judge Richard K. Renn of York County included some commentary about the practice in his order.
Judge Renn wrote: “[W]e have noticed a disturbing trend in recent cases involving [York] County that the County submits additional materials to this Court for consideration during the review de novo process which it did not make available to the OOR. The Commonwealth Court recently commented on this practice, noting that ‘[l]ack of evidence, when the parties and participants had a full opportunity to submit evidence to the fact-finder, is not a valid reason for supplementing the record.’ Mission Pa., LLC v. McKelvey, 212 A.3d 119 (Pa. 2019).”
After further quoting from McKelvey, Judge Renn continued: “Indeed, one might conclude that the County was ‘sandbagging’ the OOR appeal process since no explanation was given for the recent submission of the [new evidence]. … We are not prepared at this time to draw that conclusion in the context of this case.”
I think Judge Renn’s point is crystal clear (and 100 percent correct): Absent some extremely unusual circumstance, agencies should submit all of the evidence they have in a RTKL case while that case is being heard by the Office of Open Records. In fact, the OOR regularly extends submission deadlines (and sometimes ask requesters to grant an extension of time to consider the case) to ensure that the record is fully developed before a final determination is issued.
Judge Renn’s complete order is here.
The Commonwealth Court decision in Mission Pa., LLC v. McKelvey is here.