Right-to-Know Law • Exceptions • Attorney-Client Privilege • Investigation

California Univ. of Pa. v. Schackner et al, PICS Case No. 17-1400 (Pa. Commw. Aug. 22, 2017) Hearthway, J. (21 pages).

While the defendant university’s inquiry into the collapse of an on-campus garage was ancillary to its public safety services and thus not a noncriminal investigation under Section 708(b)(17) of the Right-to-Know Law, the university was entitled to an in-camera review of certain documents that might be exempt from the law under attorney-client privilege. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]