Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

California University of PA v. B. Schackner and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 22, 2017No. California University of PA v. B. Schackner and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - 104 C.D. 2017Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

JUDGE McCULLOUGH

The thoughtful and well-written majority recognizes, as did the Office of Open Records (OOR), that the affidavit and privilege log submitted by California. University of Pennsylvania (University) are insufficient to show that the withheld documents satisfy the .noncriminal investigation and predecisional deliberations exemptions from disclosure, and, also, fail to establish that they are protected under the attorney-client privilege. Nonetheless, the majority remands to the OOR to conduct in camera review- of Document Nos. 56-58, 119,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Office of the Governor v. ScolforoCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Joe v. Prison Health Services, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Pennsylvania State Police v. MullerCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. MurphyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API