officials who may engage in protected internal communications . Id ., 249 A . 3d at 1113 .
Based upon the foregoing , the Court held that Section 708 ( b ) ( 10 )( i )( A ) does not serve to insulate communications exchanged between a commonwealth agency and a private consultant from the RTKL ’ s general requirement for openness . Id .
In conclusion , in terms of the RTKL and the internal predecisional deliberation exception , what school entities should take away is that in many instances , requests for public records will involve documents falling within the internal predecisional deliberation exception . Analyzing such requests presupposes several questions that must be addressed prior to responding . As noted above , the school entity ’ s open records officer must address the above referenced criteria but also must be prepared to prove the exception on appeal with proper evidence . Responding to such requests is not always a simple matter , and so such requests should be reviewed with the solicitor before making any response or releasing any documentation .