Background
Natalie Sperry-Mauger, acting pro se, made an in-person public-records request at the Cumberland County Clerk of Courts office in February 2025 for all records associated with a 1984 criminal docket number, including trial exhibits and transcripts of opening and closing statements. After the Clerk reported it could not locate many of the requested documents, Sperry-Mauger filed an appeal with the Office of Open Records (OOR) under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101–67.3104.
On May 1, 2025, the OOR dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the RTKL does not apply to “judicial agencies” such as the Clerk of Courts, which is instead governed by the Unified Judicial System’s Public Access Policy. During the appellate period, the Clerk located most of the documents and arranged for Sperry-Mauger to review them in September 2025. Sperry-Mauger nonetheless sought review in the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the Clerk’s mishandling of the records violated the RTKL and the Public Access Policy and that the Clerk was bound to account for all missing documents.
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court (Judge Fizzano Cannon) affirmed the OOR’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The RTKL expressly grants OOR appeals officers jurisdiction over records disputes involving Commonwealth and local agencies. 65 P.S. § 67.503(a). By contrast, appeals involving a “judicial agency” must be directed to an appeals officer designated by that judicial agency. Id. §§ 67.503(b), 67.1101(a)(1). Under Section 102 of the RTKL, a “judicial agency” is defined as “[a] court of the Commonwealth or any other entity or office of the unified judicial system.” 65 P.S. § 67.102.
The court relied on League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh v. Allegheny County, 819 A.2d 155, 158 n.12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), which held that clerks of court are personnel of the unified judicial system. Because the Clerk of Courts is a judicial agency, the OOR had no statutory authority to hear Sperry-Mauger’s appeal. The proper mechanism for obtaining judicial records denied by a clerk is to file a motion or application with the court that maintains those records—as specifically contemplated by Section 5.0(D) of the Unified Judicial System’s Public Access Policy—not an OOR appeal. The court did not separately address the merits of the records dispute given its disposition on jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- The Right-to-Know Law and the OOR’s appeal jurisdiction do not extend to “judicial agencies,” which include courts of the Commonwealth and all entities or offices of the Unified Judicial System, including clerks of court.
- A requester seeking access to judicial records that have been denied, misplaced, or lost must file a motion with the court that maintains those records, not an OOR appeal; the Unified Judicial System’s Public Access Policy governs, and Section 5.0(D) of that policy provides the exclusive administrative remedy.
- The OOR’s jurisdictional limit is statutory, not discretionary: regardless of the merits of a records request, the OOR must dismiss if the respondent is a judicial agency.
Why It Matters
This case is a useful reminder for practitioners and pro se litigants that the OOR’s reach is narrower than many requesters assume. Court records—including transcripts, trial exhibits, court orders, and filings maintained by clerks of court—fall entirely outside OOR authority. When such records are denied, cannot be located, or have been lost over time (a particular concern with older criminal dockets), the correct avenue is a motion filed with the court, not an administrative appeal. Filing with the OOR in such situations wastes time and forecloses the correct remedy while the statute of limitations or briefing deadlines run.
The decision also underscores that the Unified Judicial System’s Public Access Policy is the operative framework for court-record access in Pennsylvania—separate from and not interchangeable with the RTKL. Practitioners advising clients on public-records requests should confirm at the outset whether the custodian is a Commonwealth or local agency (where the RTKL and OOR apply) or a judicial agency (where the Public Access Policy and court motions govern).