Case ID: pa_632/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

117 A.3d 292
    PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION v. Andrew SEDER/The Times Leader, WNEP-TV, Channel 16; Times Shamrock; Times News, LLC; The Associated Press; Reading Eagle Company; PPL Electric Utilities Corporation; Pocono Mountain Media Group; Philadelphia Media Network, LLC, PA Media Group; Lancaster Newspaper, Inc.; Calkins Media Inc.; Andrew Seder/The Times Leader; Intervenors. Petition of Andrew Seder/The Times Leader; Associated Press; Calkins Media Inc.; Lancaster Newspaper Inc.; PA Media Group; Philadelphia Media Network, LLC; Pocono Mountains Media Group; Reading Eagle Company; and Times News, LLC. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Scott Kraus/The Morning Call, WNEP-TV, Channel 16; Times Shamrock; Times News, LLC; The Associated Press; Reading Eagle Company; PPL Electric Utilities Corporation; Pocono Mountain Media Group; Philadelphia Media Network, LLC, PA Media Group; Lancaster Newspaper, Inc.; Calkins Media Inc.; Andrew Seder/The Times Leader; Intervenors. Petition of Scott Kraus/The Morning Call; Associated Press; Calkins Media Inc.; Lancaster Newspaper Inc.; PA Media Group; Philadelphia Media Network, LLC; Pocono Mountains Media Group; Reading Eagle Company; and Times News, LLC.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    June 17, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Is a substantial issue of first impression presented here requiring review by the Supreme Court regarding the scope of a public records access statute other than the Right to Know Law, 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 335(d) of the Public Utility Code, when that statute was incorrectly narrowly construed by the Commonwealth Court and then subjected to inapplicable Right to Know Law exemption analysis resulting in a denial of access to public records?
(2) Does the decision of the panel of the Commonwealth Court conflict directly with a prior en banc decision of the Commonwealth Court regarding the public nature of and public access to government records under other state laws like § 335(d) of the Public Utility Code?
(3) Should review be granted here on the issue of substantial public importance presented as the Commonwealth Court’s holding below will have a significant detrimental impact on public access to documents involved in the investigations of the Public Utility Commission and resulting settlements with offending utilities to which the legislature sought to provide broad access by enacting § 335(d)?