# Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Mohn

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · April 24, 2013 · 67 A.3d 123

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4967232

## Case

- **Full name:** OFFICE OF the LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR v. Daniel MOHN
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 24, 2013
- **Citations:** 67 A.3d 123; 2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 125; 2013 WL 1749552
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Leavitt
- **Judges:** Brobson, Covey, Jubelirer, Leadbetter, Leavitt, McCullough, Pellegrini, Simpson
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4967232

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing the " ‘Holy Trinity’ of personal information, i.e., person’s name, social security number and date of birth, that are reasonably likely to result in identity theft and fraud,” and concluding that sufficient proof had not been presented to add "home address” to the …
- holding that the Lieutenant Governor’s individual government-issued e-mail address was exempt from disclosure even though it was used to conduct agency business where it was “personal” to him in carrying out his public responsibilities

## Opinion text

CONCURRING and DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
Respectfully, I dissent from one of the majority’s holdings. I would affirm the decision of the Office of Open Records that an e-mail address created by the government for the purpose of transacting governmental business is not a “personal email address” within the meaning of Section 708(b)(6)(i)(A) of the Right-to-Know Law. 1 Had the General Assembly intended otherwise, it would have exempted an “employee e-mail address” instead of “personal e-mail address.”
My dissent in this case may appear inconsistent with Office of the Governor v. Raffle, 65 A.3d 1105 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013), in which I joined the majority holding that a *140 personal cellphone number is exempt from disclosure. However, there is an important difference between a government email address and a personal cellphone number, even one paid for by the government. The government e-mail stays with the government, and it cannot be used by the employee after he leaves government service. That is not the case with a personal cellphone number that may have been established before the employee entered government and can follow that employee into retirement from government service.
Otherwise, I join the majority opinion.
Judge SIMPSON joins in this Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.
. Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4967232. Public record. Not legal advice.