OOR (Office of Open Records) Takes Surveillance Footage Request at “Face Value,” Declines District’s Semantic Interpretation

Margaret M. Cooney, Esq., (412) 594-5548, mcooney@tuckerlaw.com

In re: Anna Waskevich v. Dallas School District, OOR Dkt. No. AP 2025-1643 (Pa. Office of Open Records, Sept. 9, 2025).

Background

On May 19, 2025, parent Anna Waskevich submitted a Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) request to the Dallas School District in Northeastern Pennsylvania, seeking video footage of her child being “assaulted” in a middle school hallway. When the district did not respond within five business days, the request was deemed denied, and Ms. Waskevich appealed to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”). The OOR provided both sides with the opportunity to submit evidence.

The Dallas School District took the position that it was not in possession of any responsive records, despite having video footage from the date and location requested, because it did not feel the footage captured could be “characterized as an assault.” Dallas clarified that, “video does exist from the date, time, and location specified in the Request. However, that footage does not depict any assaultive or inappropriate conduct.” Dallas then advised that it would grant Ms. Waskevich access to the video, but only if she paid for the school to redact the faces of other identifiable students depicted.

On appeal, the Office of Open Records analyzed two separate issues: 1) Did Dallas meet its burden under the RTKL to show that no responsive record existed; and 2) Could Dallas withhold the record because it showed students’ faces?

Discussion

Taking up the first issue, the OOR reaffirmed that agencies must make a “good faith effort” to determine if responsive records exist. The OOR held that the district’s assertion that it had no responsive records because the video did not depict an “assault” was an overly narrow interpretation of the request, which violated the purpose of the RTKL. The OOR reiterated that it interprets the RTKL liberally to affect its purpose, and that by hanging up the request on the word “assault,” Dallas “thwarted” the purpose of the RTKL. Accordingly, because the district acknowledged video existed from the specified time and location, it failed to demonstrate that it was not in possession of a record responsive to Ms. Waskevich’s request.

Turning to the redaction issue, the OOR first noted that the video footage implicated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), which protects from disclosure “personally identifiable information” contained in “education records.” Because “personally identifiable information” is defined as “information that would allow a reasonable person in the school community … to identify the student with reasonable certainty,” the surveillance footage which showed students’ faces contained personally identifiable information. Accordingly, FERPA prevented disclosure of the recording to the extent that it would reveal the identity of students other than the requestor’s child. However, because Ms. Waskevich had a right, also arising under FERPA, to examine her own child’s “educational records,” she was entitled to view this video of her child. In sum, this meant that Dallas was mandated to provide the video to Ms. Waskevich with the faces of all students except her own child redacted. Because Dallas provided no evidence on appeal regarding its capability or the cost to redact students’ faces from the footage, it did not meet its burden to pass the cost off to the requestor. Dallas was required to perform the required redactions at its own expense and to permit Ms. Waskevich to view the resulting, redacted video.

Finally, the OOR noted that Dallas was prohibited from raising the RTKL’s non-criminal investigation exemption to disclosure on appeal, as the district had not asserted this basis in its response or other evidence submitted.

Practical Advice

Waskevich reinforces the following lessons for school districts fielding Right-to-Know requests:

1. While requestors must identify the records they seek with “sufficient specificity,” agencies should not be overly semantic in interpreting requests. If records exist which fall within a liberal interpretation of the request, the agency should not use subjective characterizations of terms within the request to withhold the record.
   
2. Video footage depicting students is an “educational record” to which parents of dependent students are entitled under FERPA.
   
3. However, FERPA also imposes the obligation upon districts to redact the faces of any students other than the requestor’s before producing video footage under the RTKL. A district may not pass the cost of redaction to the requestor without providing evidence as to the district’s inability to perform the redactions without the requestor bearing the cost.
   
4. School districts should be proactive in asserting any potential exemptions to public disclosure under the RTKL. An exemption, even one that may be applicable, will not be upheld by the OOR unless affirmatively raised by the district and supported by the evidence it submits.

If your district has questions about handling RTKL requests, FERPA obligations, or video-record redactions, contact Margaret Cooney at (412) 594-5548 or at mcooney@tuckerlaw.com for guidance.