Court Opinion

ID: 9750658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:17:46.982717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:16.449949
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge McCullough.
I agree with the Majority’s decision to vacate and remand this matter to the trial court. I write separately, however, because I believe that a further remand to the Office of Open Records (OOR) is warranted in order to allow the parties to submit additional evidence, in camera or otherwise, regarding: the county’s electronic records search capabilities; how disclosure of the requested information would lead to the identification of social services recipients and the types of services they receive; and the harm that such disclosure could cause to tenants participating in the “Section 8 Program.”
As the Majority recognizes, the Neighborhood Legal Services Association and The Fair Housing Partnership of Greater Pittsburgh have presented disturbing factual allegations concerning the harm disclosure could cause to the tenants of the Section 8 properties if the addresses sought are provided. The Majority also recognizes that there may be circumstances in which the disclosure of public records that are not facially exempt “is highly likely to cause the very harm the exemption is design to prevent.” (Majority op. at 216.)
In light of the concerns identified in this case, I believe that a consideration of additional relevant evidence is warranted. Therefore, I would order a further remand to the OOR to allow the parties to present such evidence for the OOR’s consideration.