• Technologies
    • Review Platforms
    • ILS Social Media Data Analysis Suite
  • Consulting & Services
    • Consulting
    • Forensics & Collections
    • Review Platform Hosting & Management
    • Managed Review
    • Our Experts
  • AI Resources
  • ILS Articles
  • Company
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Support
    • Contact Us
  • ILS
  • Sales
  • Support
  • Technologies
    • Review Platforms
    • ILS Social Media Data Analysis Suite
  • Consulting & Services
    • Consulting
    • Forensics & Collections
    • Review Platform Hosting & Management
    • Managed Review
    • Our Experts
  • AI Resources
  • ILS Articles
  • Company
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Support
    • Contact Us

February 20, 2015

Pennsylvania Court Addresses ESI Issues Under Right to Know Law

by Alan Brooks

In the Pennsylvania state court case Paint Township v. Clark, No. 2113 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Comm. Ct. Feb. 5, 2015), Plaintiff Paint Township (“Township”) appealed a trial court’s order directing it to produce cell phone records from two public officials of the Township’s Board of Supervisors under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law (RTKL).

Mr. Robert Clark (“Requester”) sought information about the cell phone records of the Township’s chairman and supervisor, including the cell phone contract, cell phone bills, the content of application-related data, and the content of all text, picture, and video messages. The trial court entered an order directing the Township to produce the requested ESI. The Township then filed a notarized affidavit claiming that the ESI could not be retrieved from the provider and was no longer in its custody or control. At a hearing, the representative from the Township testified that the Supervisor deleted all the data on his phone and reset it to its original factory settings under the directive of the Board and before Requester made his RTKL request. The Township stated that it had the phone but it had no data on it and that the Supervisor now had a private cell phone contract for work that the Township reimbursed him for monthly.

The trial court observed that simply because cell phone data had been deleted did not mean that a forensic examination could not retrieve data and/or metadata about the data. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the Township to have the phone undergo an expert forensic examination and produce any retrievable ESI, including metadata. The court also ordered the Township to produce the Supervisor’s private cell phone records to the extent they contained Township business.

The Township appealed the order, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) directing the disclosure of metadata because Requester had not expressly asked for it; (2) requiring the Township to retrieve information from the publicly-funded cell phone when the evidence established that the data no longer existed; and, (3) in compelling the production of cell phone records from the Supervisor’s private line.

The appellate court vacated the order in part and affirmed it in part. The court agreed with the Township that the record had demonstrated that all ESI had been deleted from the phone. In considering whether to uphold the order for a forensic examination, the court concluded that “there is a dramatic difference between drawing information known to exist from a computer database” versus trying to get data that “does not exist in any ascertainable format.” Based on that reasoning, the court vacated the trial court’s order directing the Township to hire a forensic examiner. It did, however, remand the issue back to the trial court for further proceedings on the issue with the appellate court’s view in mind. Notably, in dicta, the appellate court disregarded the Township’s argument that it did not have to produce metadata because the Requester had not expressly requested it, stating that “metadata is inseparable from ESI” and “must be disclosed along with an ESI document.”

With respect to whether the Township must produce records regarding the Township’s business from the private phone of the supervisor, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s order, stating that “[p]eople in positions of public power cannot hide from constituents by simply ‘privatizing’ their communications.”  The phone records between the Supervisor regarding Township business constitute a public record and must be produced regardless of whether the phone is under a “private” contract, the court concluded.

ILS – Plaintiff eDiscovery Experts

Text messages are a hot topic in eDiscovery case law, and ILS’s blog has written extensively about the topic.  In fact, ILS just devoted its monthly newsletter to surveying recent case law involving text messages and plaintiff eDiscovery.

Categories: eDiscovery Case Law, Forensics, Metadata

ILS
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 270
Irvine, CA 92614
(888) 313-4457
sales@ilsteam.com
  • About ILS
  • Consulting
  • Forensics & Collections
  • Review Platform Hosting & Management
  • Managed Review
  • Sales
  • Support
  • LinkedIn
  • X

© 2025 ILS.

  • Privacy Statement
  • Cookie Statement
  • Terms of Use/Legal
ILS
Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}