In Re Silberstein, 11 A.3d 629

MacNeal requested from York Township certain electronic communications involving Charter Homes and related to Stonebridge/Charter Homes from Jan 2008 to date.
Township produced only emails on Township-controlled computers, excluding materials solely on others’ personal computers.
Township refused records on communications between Silberstein and citizens, and between Silberstein and non-Township counsel, as not public records.
OOR granted MacNeal’s appeal, ordering production from Ness and Silberstein’s personal computers with redactions as needed.
Trial court held records on Silberstein’s personal computer are not public records; burden of proof lies with requester to prove public-record status.
This appeal followed; issues focus on whether records on a Commissioner’s personal computer are public records and who bears the burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are records on a commissioner’s personal computer public records?	MacNeal: records on personal devices are within RTKL.	Silberstein/York Township: such records are not public records absent agency possession/control.	Not public records; personal-device records are not within local agency possession/control.
Who bears the burden to establish records are public records under RTKL?	MacNeal contends records are public by RTKL policy and agency control.	RTKL requires agency to determine public status and possession/control first.	Agency must determine public status; in this case records on Silberstein’s PC were not public.

Lukes v. DPW, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) ( RTKL interpretation under former act; not controlling post-2009 reform)
Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL is remedial; promotes access to official information)
SWB Yankees LLC v. Gretchen Wintermantel, 999 A.2d 672 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) ( plenary review for RTKL questions; standard of review)
Stein v. Plymouth Township, 994 A.2d 1179 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) ( plenary review; interpretation of RTKL provisions)