Field Note · Sourced · Verified Against Primary Document
FINAL DETERMINATION ISSUED, AP 2026-0167
Mailed September 23, 2026. Granted in part, denied in part. The District has 30 days to produce; either party has 30 days to appeal to Chester County Common Pleas.
▸ Ordered Disclosed
Unredaction ordered for “Brian Fox Emails_Redacted.pdf” — pages concerning a draft preliminary-hearing impact statement, federal lawsuit updates, and individuals associated with the requester.
Attorney-client privilege found waived for portions of “Miller PSP and PD_Redacted.pdf,” because the communications involved third parties — state troopers and detectives — outside the privileged relationship.
An email with the subject line “Miller loses Fed civil suit!!!” was forwarded to Joseph Juisti of the East Pikeland Township Police Department.
Further unredaction ordered across additional pages of “Miller PSP and PD_Redacted.pdf.”
A certified intent-to-sue letter was found to exist only in physical form, never uploaded to the District’s software. Production ordered in the medium in which it exists.
OOR rejected “nonresponsive” as a sufficient reason, standing alone, to redact portions of these responsive agency records. Disclosure ordered across the “Miller mentions by name” volumes. This is a finding about these specific records, not a general rule that nonresponsive material can never be withheld.
FERPA protection upheld for identifiable students’ faces and a list of student names — but rejected where records were labeled only “Student record[s]” without further support.
Redaction of RTKL requester names found improper; disclosure ordered.
Redaction of certain social-media posts appearing within federal-court records found improper.
Redaction of a screenshot of a private citizen’s Facebook post, contained within Board-member emails concerning District business, found improper.
A “medical information” redaction was reversed after an unredacted duplicate elsewhere in the record revealed the material to be a general statement that someone had been injured.
▸ Upheld for the District
Insurance-related communications — coverage, billing, and deductibles, among District counsel, the Business Manager, and the District’s carrier — upheld as protected.
Attorney-client privilege and work product upheld for most of the identified records for which privilege was asserted — concerning the federal lawsuit, the criminal trespass matter, the notice of intent to sue, and RTKL requests and appeals themselves.
The District’s search found adequate, based on six affidavits describing a process involving the Agency Open Records Officer, a technology administrator, and counsel — approximately 4GB and 5,616 pages generated. OOR noted the affidavits “could have been more detailed” but found them sufficient under the preponderance standard.
▸ What OOR Declined to Reach
Records concerning Brian Fox’s alleged May 27–28, 2026 social-media activity were found not responsive to this request — the request’s stated timeframe was January 1, 2021 through December 5, 2025, and did not expressly seek social-media posts. OOR did not adjudicate the truth of the underlying allegation.
OOR states plainly that “the Requester has not raised the issue of bad faith on appeal,” and did not address bad faith in this determination.
OOR expressly declined to determine whether additional responsive records should exist. Its inquiry was limited to whether records were in existence and in the agency’s possession at the time of the request. The search-adequacy finding above does not establish that the District created or preserved every record it should have — that question was not before OOR and was not decided.
OOR Docket AP 2026-0167 · Mailed 9/23/2026
Administrative Literacy Series · CulturalContrarianPMA.org