[the declaration] should be accepted as true.” (Id., citing McGowan v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 103 A.3d 374, 382-83 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014).) OOR concluded that based upon the evidence provided, the Department met its burden of proving that it does not possess the requested records. (Final Determination at 4.) As to the Department’s claim that it was not required to obtain a record from its contractor where that record does not directly relate to the contractor's performance of providing medical services, OOR noted that certain records in the possession of a third-party government contractor are subject to disclosure under RTKL Section 506(d)(1), 65 P.S. § 67.506(d)(1), citing Allegheny County Department of Administrative Services v. A Second Chance, Inc., 13 A.3d 1025, 1039 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (<HOLDING>). (Final Determination at 4-5.) OOR then
holding that copies of court records only had to be made available in an agency reading room the agency is not required by statute to mail copies of the records  nor even to provide a requesterconvenient location for access holding that draft pleadings are not subject to public records disclosure recognizing that intent of public records act is to provide all citizens with access to the records of all public governmental bodies holding that payroll records of a private roofing contractor in the custody of a local agency were public records because they evidenced a disbursement by a governmental unit holding that records in the possession of a party with whom an agency has contracted to perform a governmental function on behalf of the agency are presumptively public records subject to public access so long as the record a directly relates to the governmental function and b is not exempt under the rtkl