In an October 6, 2026 order in Hayden AI Technologies Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court confirmed that an affected third party’s petition for review automatically stays the release of records previously ordered to be disclosed under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)—even if the third party did not participate in the Office of Open Records (OOR) proceeding because it allegedly lacked notice. The case arose after the OOR directed the Philadelphia Parking Authority to release records that the petitioner claimed contained confidential and proprietary information, including trade secrets.
Pointing to Section 1301(b) of the RTKL, the Court explained that “the filing of a petition for review stayed the release of the documents at issue in this matter until a decision by this Court is issued.” Although the order is procedural and does not decide the merits, it makes clear that a third party’s absence from the OOR proceeding does not, by itself, eliminate the automatic stay that applies to third parties that participated before OOR. See Baron v. Dep’t of Human Svcs., 169 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (confirming that Section 1301 of the RTKL provides direct-interest participants the same automatic stay protection, which prohibits the release of records while an appeal of an OOR decision is pending, that it provides to agencies).