IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Angela Couloumbis, Spotlight PA, :

Sam Janesch and The Caucus, :

Petitioners :

:

 v. : No. 1425 C.D. 2022

: ARGUED: September 11, 2023

Pennsylvania Office of General :

Counsel (Office of Open Records), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: July 23, 2024

This matter concerns application of the Right-to-Know Law1(RTKL)

to subject matter lines on outside law firm invoices requested from the Pennsylvania 

Office of General Counsel (OGC). With respect to certain invoices that we have 

inspected in camera, we direct the release of copies of those records with the subject 

matter lines unredacted. With respect to the balance of the invoices, which we have 

not reviewed, we vacate the order of Office of Open Records (OOR) and remand for 

an in camera review of the documents in question to determine if the subject matter 

lines are subject to the attorney-client privilege.

1 Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
2

Background

In January 2022, Angela Couloumbis, Spotlight PA, Sam Janesch, and 

The Caucus2(collectively, Requesters), submitted a request to OGC seeking the 

disclosure of “[e]ngagement letters, retainer letters, contracts, invoices[,] and any 

other financial documents detailing an agreement or payment for legal services by 

an outside individual attorney or law firm for departments under the governor's 

jurisdiction . . . for calendar years 2019, 2020[,] and 2021.” (Reproduced R. “R.R.” 

at 1a.) In response, OGC produced 169 pages of invoices from outside law firms 

and their subcontractors with extensive redactions (R.R. at 26a-195a), including the 

subject matter line of each invoice—i.e., the information “typically located near the 

top of each individual invoice and preceded with ‘RE:’ or ‘In the Matter of’ or 

‘Project:.’” (R.R. at 7a.) OGC at that time asserted that the redactions—generally, 

not only of the subject matter lines, but of other contents as well—concealed 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, or 

executive privilege.

Requesters appealed to OOR, specifically limiting their challenge to

OGC’s redaction of the invoices’ subject matter lines, seeking “review of the 

redactions which improperly obscure the purpose or name of the case.” (R.R. at 8a.) 

Requesters requested that the redacted subject matter lines be revealed or, in the 

alternative, that in camera review of the records be done by OOR. Requesters 

specifically disclaimed that they sought review of redactions issued to protect 

2 Requesters Couloumbis and Janesch are journalists employed by, respectively, Spotlight PA 

and The Caucus. Couloumbis and Janesch were also the requesters in two recent RTKL appeals

before this Court involving access to the legal billing records of the Pennsylvania Senate and 

House of Representatives. See Couloumbis v. Senate of Pa., 300 A.3d 1093 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023),

and Janesch v. Pa. House of Representatives, 299 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023). Although those 

matters were decided after submission of briefs in the instant case, they deal with related issues.
3

personal information such as personal financial information, email addresses, 

telephone numbers, or similar personal identifying information.

After a failed attempt at mediation, OGC submitted an affirmation 

prepared by its open records officer, Marc Eisenstein, (R.R. at 18a-20a), asserting 

that the redactions were made pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, and that 

certain invoices—those generated by the law firms of Klehr Harrison Harvey 

Branzburg, LLP, and Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, LLP—were 

protected by the criminal investigation exception and were prohibited for release by 

order of court. (Eisenstein Affirmation, ¶¶ 16-17.) The Eisenstein affirmation 

mentions, in passing, that “counsel has not waived the attorney work[ ]product 

privilege” but does not elaborate further. (Id., ¶ 15.) The Eisenstein affirmation 

does not assert executive privilege, which was claimed in OGC’s denial letter. 

Requesters concede, for purposes of this appeal, that the Eisenstein affirmation 

functions as a testimonial affidavit. (Requesters’ Br. at 18 n.5.) Notably, despite 

the express limitation of the appeal to the subject matter line redactions, the 

Eisenstein affirmation does not specifically address those, but instead refers to the

entirety of the redactions.

On November 21, 2022, OOR issued its final determination affirming 

OGC’s partial denial of the request, concluding that the Eisenstein affirmation 

established that the subject matter lines were subject to attorney-client privilege.

[Final Determination (Pa. Off. of Open Recs., Docket No. AP 2022-0621, issued 

Nov. 21, 2022).] OOR denied Requesters’ request for in camera review and did not

acknowledge or address OGC’s additional justifications for the redactions. 

Although noting that “the subject matters of invoices are not generally withheld by 

agencies” and recognizing that its determination means that the public is “unable to 
4

fully understand why taxpayer legal expenses have been incurred for these invoices,” 

OOR nevertheless found that OGC had “demonstrated that the specific information, 

in this instance, is protected by the attorney-client privilege.” (Id.) OOR concluded 

that because a sworn affidavit may serve as sufficient evidentiary support for denial

and, given the presumption that averments in an affidavit are true in the absence of 

bad faith, OGC had met its burden to show that the information was protected by the 

attorney-client privilege.

Requesters asked OOR for reconsideration, which request was denied 

as untimely. Thereafter, Requesters filed the instant petition for review. On appeal, 

Requesters argue that OGC did not meet its burden to establish that the redacted 

subject matter lines are privileged or otherwise exempt from the RTKL, addressing 

the attorney-client and work product privileges and the criminal investigation 

exemption in their brief. OGC continues to argue that the attorney-client privilege 

applies to prevent the release of the redacted portions of the records sought; OGC

also continues to assert that the redacted portions of the Klehr Harrison and 

Obermayer invoices “include details that would reveal the institution, progress, or 

result of investigations.”

3

(OGC Br. at 12.)

3 We note that the issue of work product privilege is waived. Beyond a brief mention of the 

work product privilege, the Eisenstein affirmation provides no justification for its application, as 

an agency must raise all its challenges before the fact-finder closes the record. Levy v. Senate of 

Pa., 94 A.3d 436, 441 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (Levy 2014).

Furthermore, despite asserting that the work product privilege applies in an argument heading

of its brief (OGC Br. at 5), the issue is not argued in the body of the brief. The argument portion 

of a brief must be developed with pertinent discussion of the issues, including citations to relevant 

authority. Rule 2119(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). 

When parties fail to satisfy this requirement, the Court is neither obliged, nor even particularly 

equipped, to develop an argument for them. Skytop Meadow Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Paige, 177 A.3d 

377, 385 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).
5

Klehr Harrison and Obermayer Invoices

At OGC’s insistence, we ordered submission of the Klehr Harrison and 

Obermayer invoices and conducted an in camera review. Although continuing to 

assert that these invoices are covered by the attorney-client privilege, the specific 

reason for requesting in camera review of these invoices were, variously, the 

“ramifications inherent in disclosing records of investigations” (OGC Br. at 13), and 

the suggestion at oral argument that the Klehr Harrison and Obermayer invoices 

were protected by an order of court and thus may only be reviewed by a court.

We have reviewed the Klehr Harrison and Obermayer invoices in full 

and find no ground to preclude the release of these records with the subject matter 

lines unredacted.

RTKL Burden Generally

Where an agency asserts a privilege, it bears the burden of proof to 

demonstrate by sufficient facts that the privilege applies. Janesch v. Pa. House of 

Representatives, 299 A.3d, 1030, 1036 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023); see also Section 

708(a)(1) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(a)(1) (“[t]he burden of proving that a record 

of a Commonwealth agency . . . is exempt from public access shall be on the . . . 

agency . . . by a preponderance of the evidence”); Section 903(2) of the RTKL, 65 

P.S. § 67.903(2) (when denying a request in whole or in part, an agency must state 

in writing the “specific reasons for the denial including citation of supporting legal 

authority”).
6

Criminal Investigation Exception

OGC broadly argues that its redactions from the Klehr Harrison and 

Obermayer invoices would reveal the institution, progress, or result of criminal 

investigations and are prohibited by order of court.4

Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Eisenstein affirmation state as follows: 

16) In addition to the above privileges and averments, 

which apply with equal credulity [sic] to the invoices 

detailing the work of Klehr Harrison and Obermayer[], 

such invoices of those two firms specifically detail work 

performed on criminal investigations and detail the 

initiation, progress[,] or result of such investigations.

17) With respect to the invoices of Klehr Harrison and 

Obermayer . . . , an order of court prohibits the Office for 

[sic] disclosing further information about such matters.

(R.R. at 20a.) OGC thus implicitly invoked Section 67.708(b)(16)(iv) and (vi)(A) 

of the RTKL (criminal investigation exception), which exempts from access:

4 This portion of the brief leaves something to be desired in terms of compliance with

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a), see supra note 3; it consists of approximately 

one page of text with two footnotes and no citation to legal authority. At all events, as we have 

reviewed the actual unredacted documents, we exercise our discretion and address this issue

insofar as it is cognizable.

OGC also incorrectly states that OOR affirmed its determination on this ground. OOR’s final 

determination did not address this issue.

We further note that OGC relies in its brief on the Eisenstein affirmation as evidence that the 

redactions are justified under the criminal investigation exception and/or subject to an order of 

court. Given the brief and entirely conclusory nature of the representations concerning the criminal 

investigation exception, the Eisenstein affirmation is insufficient to prove that the subject matter 

lines in the Klehr Harrison and Obermayer invoices are exempt from disclosure. See Off. of the 

Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (en banc) (to meet the burden of 

proof that a record is exempt, a testimonial affidavit must be “detailed [and] nonconclusory”).
7

A record of an agency relating to or resulting in a criminal 

investigation, including:

. . . .

(iv) A record that includes information made confidential 

by . . . court order.

. . . . 

(vi) A record that, if disclosed, would do any of the 

following:

. . . . 

(A) Reveal the institution, progress or result of a criminal 

investigation, except the filing of criminal charges.

65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(16)(iv) and (vi)(A).

Our review of the unredacted documents in question reveals that the 

subject matter lines in the Klehr Harrison invoices each state “[Individual] GJ 

Representation.” The subject matter lines in the Obermayer invoices state as 

follows: “[INDIVIDUAL] AS WITNESS IN A STATE GRAND JURY 

INVESTIGATION,” “WITNESSES IN A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION IN THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PA,” “[INDIVIDUAL] IN AN INVESTIGATION BY 

THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION.” We conclude that these do not reveal the 

“institution, progress[,] or result of a criminal investigation.”

As our Supreme Court has stated, the term “‘criminal investigation’

clearly and obviously refers to an official inquiry into a possible crime.’” Pa. State 

Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877, 892-93 (Pa. 2017) (emphasis supplied). We find as 

fact that OGC was not itself pursuing an official inquiry into a possible crime but 

representing individuals as witnesses or in some capacity before grand juries 

conducted by federal or state authorities and in an investigation by the State Ethics 
8

Commission. See Bowling v. Off. of Open Recs., 75 A.3d 453, 474 (Pa. 2013)

(holding that under RTKL, reviewing courts are ultimate finders of fact and are to 

conduct full de novo reviews of appeals made from RTKL appeals officers). 

Moreover, it is doubtful that OGC, as its powers and duties are delineated by Section

301 the Commonwealth Attorneys Act,

5 71 P.S. § 732-301, may in the first instance 

engage in an “official inquiry” into a possible crime,

6 and surely not one before a 

federal or state grand jury or the State Ethics Commission.

In Levy 2014,

7 a case in which a requester sought legal bills from the 

Pennsylvania Senate, we rejected the Senate’s argument that the criminal 

investigation exception protects client identities and general descriptions of legal 

services in legal bills because the information related to or resulted in a criminal 

investigation. In that case, we held that “neither the client identities nor the general 

descriptions of services performed reveal the institution or progress of a criminal 

investigation. The records at issue are bills or an engagement letter and do not relate 

to any ‘law enforcement functions’ of the Senate.” Id. at 449; cf. Galloway v. Off.

of Pa. Att’y Gen., 63 A.3d 485, 487 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (records protected from 

disclosure under criminal investigation exception because the request pertained to 

the law enforcement functions of the Office of Attorney General).

5 Act of October 15, 1980, P.L. 950, as amended.

6

It is the Office of Attorney General, an independent department, see Section 201 of the 

Commonwealth Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. § 732-201, that has power to investigate “any criminal 

offense which he has the power to prosecute . . .” and “convene and conduct investigating grand 

juries.” Section 206 of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. § 732-206 (emphasis supplied).

7 The Levy series of cases, Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 34 A.3d 243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), 

rev’d in part, 65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (Levy 2013), and Levy 2014 (on remand from the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Levy 2013), set forth standards for, inter alia, the criminal investigation 

exception and the attorney-client privilege.
9

As was the case with the documents at issue in Levy 2014, the Klehr 

Harrison and Obermayer invoices’ subject matter lines do not relate to any “official 

inquiry” of OGC of the type contemplated by the criminal investigation exemption. 

OGC has no law enforcement function in these matters but is instead providing—

through outside law firms—representation to individuals in investigations being 

conducted by other entities. Thus, the Klehr Harrison and Obermayer invoices’ 

subject matter lines are not exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(16)(vi)(A)

of the RTKL.

No court order (or orders, given the multiple inquiries referenced in the 

subject matter lines) has (or have) been provided, identified, or described, either in 

the records themselves or any submission to OOR or this Court to support the claim 

that the Klehr Harrison or Obermayer invoices’ subject matter lines may not be 

released by order of court. Given this, OGC has failed to meet its burden to show 

that disclosure of the subject matter lines in the Klehr Harrison and Obermayer 

invoices are prevented by Section 708(b)(16)(iv) of the RTKL. To the extent that 

OAG is simply referring to the rules regarding the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, 

Levy 2014 likewise rejected that argument regarding client identities. We concluded 

that “revealing the name of the client in the Senate’s billing records does not 

constitute the ‘unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a [state or 

federal] grand jury.’” Levy 2014, 94 A.3d at 447.
10

Attorney-Client Privilege

Similiarly, with respect to the subject matter lines on the Klehr Harrison 

and Obermayer invoices, we find that the attorney-client privilege does not prevent 

disclosure.

8

A Commonwealth agency record is generally presumed to be public 

unless “protected by a privilege” or subject to other exemption, Section 305(a) of 

the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.305(a); see also 65 P.S. § 67.102 [defining “public record” 

as “a record . . . not protected by privilege”]. The RTKL defines privilege to include 

“the attorney-client privilege.” 65 P.S. § 67.102. In criminal proceedings or civil 

matters, “counsel shall not be competent to testify to confidential communications 

made to him by his client, nor shall the client be compelled to disclose the same, 

unless in either case this privilege is waived upon the trial by the client.” Sections 

5916 and 5928 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5916 and 5928. Whether the 

attorney-client privilege protects a communication from disclosure is a question of 

law. In re Thirty-Third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, 86 A.3d 204, 215 (Pa. 

2014).

The contours of the attorney-client privilege as it applies in the context 

of the RTKL were set forth by the Supreme Court in Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 

65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (Levy 2013). While attorney-client privilege is deeply rooted 

in the common law, it is in tension with the RTKL’s goal of government 

transparency. Id. at 368. Not all information passed between client and attorney is 

8 As it did before OOR, OGC continues to generally contend that the attorney-client privilege 

protects all the redacted information in the invoices from disclosure, without addressing the 

specific redactions—the subject matter lines—that Requesters appealed to the OOR and this Court. 

OGC also continues to rely on the Eisenstein affirmation to meet its burden of showing that the 

attorney-client privilege applies.
11

privileged, but rather the privilege is limited to communications related to the legal 

advice sought by the client. Id. at 368-69. Further,

the determination of the applicability of the attorney-client 

privilege does not turn on the category of the information, 

such as a client’s identity or address, or the category of a 

document, such as whether it is an invoice or fee 

agreement. Instead, the relevant question is whether the 

content of the writing will result in disclosure of 

information otherwise protected by the attorney-client 

privilege. For example, descriptions of legal services that 

address the client’s motive for seeking counsel, legal 

advice, strategy, or other confidential communications are 

undeniably protected under the attorney[-]client privilege. 

In contrast, an entry that generically states that counsel 

made a telephone call for a specific amount of time to the 

client is not information protected by the attorney-client 

privilege but, instead, is subject to disclosure under the 

specific provisions of the RTKL.

Id. at 373 (internal citation omitted). “While a client’s identity is generally not 

privileged, the attorney-client privilege may apply in cases where divulging the 

client’s identity would disclose either the legal advice given or the confidential 

communications provided.” Id. at 371-72. “Application of the exception . . . will 

involve case[-]specific determinations of whether revealing the otherwise nonprivileged identity will result in the disclosure of privileged information based upon 

what has been previously disclosed.” Id. at 372.

The Klehr Harrison and Obermayer invoices’ subject matter lines 

contain the information set forth above: the fact that individuals, some identified and 

some not, were represented as witnesses before state and federal grand juries and in 

an investigation by the State Ethics Commission. The fact of (named or unnamed)

individuals’ representation in a grand jury or State Ethics Commission proceeding 

does not reveal what the Levy decisions stated is protected by the attorney-client 
12

privilege: “[s]pecific descriptions of legal services that would divulge confidential 

client communications or an attorney’s mental impressions, legal theories or 

analysis, notes, strategies, and the like.” Couloumbis v. Senate of Pa., 300 A.3d 

1093, 1103-04 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (Couloumbis 2023)

9

(emphasis supplied) (citing 

the Levy decisions). As the Supreme Court held regarding a similar claim of 

privilege in Levy 2013, “given the substantial redactions of confidential 

communications in the body of the document, . . . there was no need to redact the 

client’s name. Nothing was revealed other than the fact of counsel’s engagement 

and that it related to a grand jury investigation.” Levy 2013, 65 A.3d at 372. Based 

on our careful review of the documents, we find that the subject matter lines, if 

released, would not divulge any protected information.

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the Klehr Harrison and 

Obermayer invoice subject matter lines are not subject to attorney-client privilege or 

the criminal investigation exception and are subject to disclosure under the RTKL.

Application of Attorney-Client Privilege to the Balance of the Invoices

What remains to be decided is the applicability of the attorney-client 

privilege to the subject matter lines in the balance of the invoices, found on pages

26a to 61a, 95a to 100a, and 190a to 194a of the Reproduced Record. We have 

determined that remand to OOR for in camera review of these invoices is appropriate

to develop a factual record.

Requesters argue that OGC failed to establish that the subject matter 

lines were subject to attorney-client privilege. They contend that it is implausible 

that the caption of every invoice OGC received from an outside law firm between 

2019 and 2021 contains information subject to the attorney-client privilege. 

9

See supra note 2. 
13

Requesters do not argue that the captions of legal invoices can never be privileged, 

only that it is “exceedingly rare,” (Requesters’ Br. at 18), and that the contention that 

all the involved captions contained such information beggars belief, given that 

information typically contained in the captions of legal invoices does not reveal 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Requesters further argue that 

the Eisenstein affirmation contains only vague, conclusory statements about the 

application of the attorney-client and work product privileges to the invoice captions 

and fails to carry OGC’s burden.

OGC asserts that it has met its burden to show that the attorney-client 

privilege applies to the redactions made through the Eisenstein affirmation. Neither 

the affirmation nor OGC’s brief address the information contained specifically in 

the subject matter lines, except to briefly state that it does not matter that the 

information is in the caption rather than the body of the invoice. (OGC Brief at 11-

12.)

In recent cases, Janesch and Couloumbis 2023, we considered similar 

requests for subject matter lines in legal invoices held by legislative agencies—the 

two houses of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. We stated that pursuant to the 

Levy line of cases,

general descriptions of legal services, i.e., that a lawyer 

made a telephone call, had a meeting, or sat in conference 

with other lawyers or the client, are not protected and may 

not be redacted from attorney invoices or engagement 

letters. Specific descriptions of legal services that would 

divulge confidential client communications or an 

attorney’s mental impressions, legal theories or analysis, 

notes, strategies, and the like are protected. These are the 

only general categories of privileged information of which 

the Levy decisions speak. Their application and the 

propriety of any redactions made by an agency to a RTKL 

document production on the grounds of privilege must be 
14

addressed on a case-by-case basis. Thus, whether subject 

matters in engagement letters and invoices may be 

redacted depends on whether their disclosure would 

compromise the protection of the confidential information 

identified above. If not, then the [attorney-client] 

privilege[] do[es] not apply and the subject matters must 

be disclosed.

Couloumbis 2023, 300 A.3d at 1103-04 (citations omitted); see also Janesch, 299 

A.3d at 1040-41. We declined to accept the suggestion of the Senate in Couloumbis 

2023 that there was any categorical protection of production of subject matter lines

in legal representations contained in engagement letters and invoices. Couloumbis 

2023, 300 A.3d at 1104. Conversely, there was not, as suggested by Requesters in 

Janesch, a “prophylactic rule . . . requiring the production of the subject matters of 

legal representation, whether contained in the subject line of an engagement letter, 

the body of an invoice, or elsewhere.” Janesch, 299 A.3d at 1041. “Rather, each 

subject matter is to be analyzed independently to determine whether its disclosure 

would compromise confidential information.” Couloumbis 2023, 300 A.3d at 1104. 

The application and propriety of any redactions made on the grounds of privilege 

“must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.” Janesch, 299 A.3d at 1041.

One method an agency may use in meeting the burden of proof that a 

record is exempt from disclosure is through relevant and credible testimonial 

affidavits or attestations. Couloumbis 2023, 300 A.3d at 1104. Such documents 

may provide sufficient evidence in support of a claimed exemption. Off. of the Dist. 

Att’y of Phila. v. Bagwell, 155 A.3d 1119, 1130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). However, 

conclusory affidavits, standing alone, will not satisfy the burden of proof an agency 

must sustain to show that a requester may be denied access to records under the 

RTKL. Id.
15

In Couloumbis 2023, the Senate provided three attestations relevant to 

its redactions and asserted privileges. One asserted that the Senate “was careful not 

to make any blanket redactions” but two others stated that the subject matter was 

redacted in most circumstances “where the representation is not otherwise a matter 

of public record in a court of law.” Couloumbis 2023, 300 A.3d at 1104-05. We 

found that these statements were contradictory and that the blanket application was 

inconsistent with the Levy decisions’ rule that redactions from legal documents be 

made on a case-by-case basis, and that we did not have enough information to 

determine whether the Senate had met its burden to establish applicability of the 

privileges it asserted. Id. at 1105. We remanded the matter for in camera review of 

the documents at issue, concluding that “without more information, we [could not] 

determine if the Senate has met its burden to establish the applicability of either the 

attorney-client or work product privileges.” Id.

However, we found that the affidavits submitted by the House in 

Janesch were sufficient, because

[a]ll . . . of the . . . affiants included specific factual 

material detailing their search for responsive documents, 

their knowledge of the Levy decisions, their (days-long) 

personal review of responsive documents, and the specific 

categories of items they redacted . . . . [N]o document was 

withheld in its entirety on the basis of privilege. The 

documents all have been produced and contain more than 

sufficient unredacted information to give ample context 

clues identifying the nature of the redacted information 

and the ground(s) upon which the redactions were made. 

Thus, we conclude that the [a]ffidavits, coupled with the 

responsive documents themselves, adequately establish 

the applicability of the attorney-client and work product 

privileges to the House’s redactions.

Janesch, 299 A.3d at 1042.
16

In this case, the Eisenstein affirmation states that all redactions were 

made pursuant to the parameters set forth in Levy 2013. (Eisenstein Affirmation ¶ 

6). The affirmation continues with statements to the effect that “unless otherwise 

detailed,” all redactions were “necessary to prevent disclosure of the client’s motive 

for seeking counsel, legal advice, strategy, or other confidential information” (id., ¶ 

7); that the redactions “detailed the legal advice, and/or strategy relating to a wide 

variety of matters for which the client consulted an attorney, would reveal the 

client’s reasons or motivation for seeking legal advice” (id., ¶ 8); and that OGC did 

not redact “every line” but went “word by word,” redacting “portions of entries, 

while leaving intact for each line the type of work being conducted, such as a 

telephone call, email, or meeting” (id., ¶ 9). The affirmation asserts that “[t]o 

provide further justification for each redaction would require [OGC] to provide 

information that is itself subject to the attorney privilege and its 

disclosure/production would violate said privilege.” (Id., ¶ 10.) OGC insists that 

the redacted information “only details the specific work being performed and the 

nature of the legal issue being addressed only where such work is not a matter already 

disclosed to the public, such as in cases brought before the Courts of the United 

States or this Commonwealth” [Id., ¶ 11 (emphasis original)]; and “reveals the 

attorney’s legal strategies on varied issues. For example, the redactions remove 

reference to the specific cases and laws that counsel researched to address issues[] 

but left intact the fact that research or similar work was performed” (id., ¶ 12); and 

“includes details of the legal issue for which [OGC] sought legal services.” (Id., ¶ 

13.) The affiant denied that OGC had redacted the names of individuals with whom 

it communicated “except where doing so would reveal privileged information.” (Id., 

¶ 14.)
17

The Eisenstein affirmation treats the subject matter lines and all other 

redactions the same. The affirmation states that all redactions were made pursuant 

to the parameters set forth in Levy 2013 but fails to explain why the specific 

redactions challenged before OOR—the invoice subject matter lines—are covered 

by the attorney-client or work product privileges, or to mention them as 

distinguished from the other redacted items. This is problematic given the reduced 

scope of records sought by Requesters on appeal to OOR. Further, given the 

discrepancy between what we found in our in camera review of the Klehr Harrison 

and Obermayer invoices and what was represented in the Eisenstein affirmation, we 

believe in camera review necessary to confirm the applicability of the attorney-client 

privilege to the balance of the invoices’ subject matter lines. 

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, we reverse the order of the OOR with respect 

to the Klehr Harrison and Obermayer invoice subject matter lines and direct OGC 

to release copies of those records with those items unredacted. With respect to the 

remainder of the invoices, we vacate and remand the matter to OOR for in camera

review of the balance of the invoices with the subject matter lines unredacted, with 

a final determination to be issued within 120 days of the date of the Court’s Order. 

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

President Judge Emerita
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Angela Couloumbis, Spotlight PA, :

Sam Janesch and The Caucus, :

Petitioners :

:

 v. : No. 1425 C.D. 2022

:

Pennsylvania Office of General :

Counsel (Office of Open Records), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2024, after argument on September 

11, 2023, and in camera judicial review by the panel, it is ORDERED and 

DECREED as follows: 

The final determination of the appeals officer of the Office of Open 

Records is REVERSED IN PART. The final determination is REVERSED as to the 

denial of Petitioners’ appeal as it respects to redacted subject matter lines on the 

invoices of Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP, and Obermayer, Rebmann, 

Maxwell & Hippel, LLP, which this panel inspected in camera and are found in 

redacted form in the Reproduced Record from pages 26a to 61a, 95a to 100a, and 

190a to 194a. The Pennsylvania Office of General Counsel is DIRECTED to release 

these records with the subject matter lines unredacted, with the balance of the 

redactions unaffected.

It is DIRECTED that the unredacted bills of Klehr Harrison Harvey 

Branzburg, LLP, and Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, LLP, shall remain 

with this Court under seal and shall not be remitted with the record on remand.
The final determination is VACATED IN PART and the matter is 

REMANDED to the Office of Open Records to hold an in camera review to 

determine whether only the subject matter lines contained in the remaining invoices 

found in the Reproduced Record from pages 62a to 94a and 101a to 189a are exempt 

from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. The Office of Open Records is 

DIRECTED to issue a final determination in this matter within 120 days of the date 

of this Order.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

President Judge Emerita