A party seeking access to public records is entitled to pursue official copies through litigation even when unofficial copies are available through third-party sources, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled.

The justices issued a unanimous ruling Nov. 22 in In re 2014 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury finding that the Superior Court acted on insufficient information when it determined sua sponte that WPXI Inc.'s request for public documents was rendered moot by the existence of unofficial copies.

“This court recognizes the important role of a vigorous free press in a democratic society,” Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor wrote for the court. “We also appreciate the need for responsible media organizations to verify information, not only to protect against liability, but in furtherance of their professional calling to provide the public with accurate reporting.”

WPXI, a Pittsburgh television station, was investigating allegations of improper relationships among teachers and students at a local high school in 2015 when it filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings of the 2014 Allegheny County grand jury. The station sought access to unsealed records, specifically a search warrant and a related court order, Saylor said.

The grand jury supervising judge denied WPXI's motion, reasoning that the presumption of openness does not extend to records in grand jury proceedings. The supervising judge noted that a separate media outlet had obtained a copy of the search warrant and it was readily available online.

WPXI's appeal was dismissed by a Superior Court panel that invoked, sua sponte, the mootness doctrine, finding that because the station had access to both of the documents it sought, a determination on the matter could not have “'any practical effect on the existing controversy.'”

Before the justices, WPXI argued that the public disclosure of judicial records does not moot a request for access to official copies of those records. The company contended that news organizations have a compelling interest in verifying the information they report and that they cannot simply rely on documents they find on the internet, which could be false or misleading and expose them to liability.

The state, as appellee, concurred with WPXI that the issues raised in the Superior Court were not moot, Saylor said.

“We agree with WPXI that the common law right of access to public judicial records is not obviated by any and all forms of dissemination by third-party sources,” Saylor said.

There may be circumstances in which it would be unreasonable for a news organization to pursue documents that have been “distributed widely via reliable sources” and are “readily verifiable,” Saylor said, but he refused to sustain a sua sponte mootness determination with no assessment of the reliability or verifiability of the documents requested. The Superior Court should have proceeded to the merits, he said in reversing and remanding the matter.

Walter P. DeForest III of DeForest Koscelnik Yokitis & Berardinelli, who represented WPXI, said he was pleased with the decision. The Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, representing the state, did not respond to a request for comment.

A party seeking access to public records is entitled to pursue official copies through litigation even when unofficial copies are available through third-party sources, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled.

The justices issued a unanimous ruling Nov. 22 in In re 2014 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury finding that the Superior Court acted on insufficient information when it determined sua sponte that WPXI Inc.'s request for public documents was rendered moot by the existence of unofficial copies.

“This court recognizes the important role of a vigorous free press in a democratic society,” Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor wrote for the court. “We also appreciate the need for responsible media organizations to verify information, not only to protect against liability, but in furtherance of their professional calling to provide the public with accurate reporting.”

WPXI, a Pittsburgh television station, was investigating allegations of improper relationships among teachers and students at a local high school in 2015 when it filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings of the 2014 Allegheny County grand jury. The station sought access to unsealed records, specifically a search warrant and a related court order, Saylor said.

The grand jury supervising judge denied WPXI's motion, reasoning that the presumption of openness does not extend to records in grand jury proceedings. The supervising judge noted that a separate media outlet had obtained a copy of the search warrant and it was readily available online.

WPXI's appeal was dismissed by a Superior Court panel that invoked, sua sponte, the mootness doctrine, finding that because the station had access to both of the documents it sought, a determination on the matter could not have “'any practical effect on the existing controversy.'”

Before the justices, WPXI argued that the public disclosure of judicial records does not moot a request for access to official copies of those records. The company contended that news organizations have a compelling interest in verifying the information they report and that they cannot simply rely on documents they find on the internet, which could be false or misleading and expose them to liability.

The state, as appellee, concurred with WPXI that the issues raised in the Superior Court were not moot, Saylor said.

“We agree with WPXI that the common law right of access to public judicial records is not obviated by any and all forms of dissemination by third-party sources,” Saylor said.

There may be circumstances in which it would be unreasonable for a news organization to pursue documents that have been “distributed widely via reliable sources” and are “readily verifiable,” Saylor said, but he refused to sustain a sua sponte mootness determination with no assessment of the reliability or verifiability of the documents requested. The Superior Court should have proceeded to the merits, he said in reversing and remanding the matter.

Walter P. DeForest III of DeForest Koscelnik Yokitis & Berardinelli, who represented WPXI, said he was pleased with the decision. The Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, representing the state, did not respond to a request for comment.