Published by Brad Flynn | December 15, 2023
UPDATED July 3, 2025
In the interest of protecting Bath’s taxpayers from Michael Long’s potential to file more frivolous court actions, expending unnecessary tax dollars, the Borough is foregoing its appeal rights. The Borough has finalized its response, in compliance and accordance with the June 24th Court Order, see below.
The Borough considers this matter closed.
UPDATED July 3, 2025
Michael Long is at it again. Firing off emails to Borough Council, the Borough’s Special Solicitor for Right-to-Know, matters, Chad Schnee, the Borough’s Solicitor Pat Armstrong, and the Borough’s former Solicitor, Jamie Kratz. Long’s email is entitled, ‘NOTICE OF VIOLATION – FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER’ claiming the Borough is violating the June 24th Court Order by not providing him with requested documents, even though the Court has said the Borough, after a review of the subject records in this case, may find there isn’t anything to provide Mr. Long.
Long threatens the Borough (and by extension, its taxpayers) with more litigation, writing he is prepared to file an action in mandamus, to compel the production of the ordered records (even though Long fails to read that the Order says, nothing could be provided to him); a motion for contempt and daily monetary sanctions of $1,500; and finally, seeking a petition for attorney’s fees and costs (even though there is no attorney of record and Mr. Long himself is not a qualified attorney). Mr. Long is hell-bent on costing the Borough more unnecessary attorney’s fees.
The Court’s Order of June 24th does not indicate a deadline for a response from the Borough. The Borough (or Mr. Long) has thirty (30) days from the date the Court Order is issued to file an appeal if either side chooses to do so. Therefore, the June 24th Court Order is not final.
UPDATED July 1, 2025:
The Court Order in this matter becomes final in thirty (30) days. The Borough will address the Order within thirty (30) days of the Order’s issuance. During this time, the Borough may consider filing an appeal to Commonwealth Court. Should the Borough file an appeal, the Docket heading will be changed from ‘Closed’ to a ‘Pending’ status.
UPDATED June 25, 2025:
After 502 days, the Court has ruled to deny the Borough’s Petition for Review.
While the Court sided with the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, Final Determination Upon Reconsideration in this matter, the Court was clear that the Borough is not required to turn over any email communications that would reveal attorney-client privileged information. In other words, of the 21-exemption log records at issue, the Borough will again review and could determine that nothing needs to be turned over to the Requestor after all.
Meaning, the Borough could send a letter to the Requestor stating the review is complete, emails are attorney-client privileged, there isn’t non-exempt factual material within the emails reviewed. Case closed. Why couldn’t the Court grant the Borough’s petition and just say that?
This case was interesting because the attorney-client privilege emails at issue and the privilege asserted wasn’t overturned by either OOR or the Court. The Borough has submitted an exemption log, detailing the emails, who was sent the information (included non-exempt factual information), why the privileged was asserted, all with a signed affidavit. Yet in both circumstances, at the State or County level, did either entity request an in-camera review of the emails. Therefore, the Borough proved its exemption status of the subject emails.
Instead, the burden is placed back on the Borough to make another evaluation of attorney-client privileged emails, and although such communications are privileged, the Borough is required to scan the emails for non-exempt factual information that could be released to the Requestor.
For the lay person, (average taxpayer) we’re talking about opening up protected emails only revealing limited information such as: “To” and “From” or “Hello”, or “Dear…” Or an email date and time stamp. Or the emails closing information such as “Sincerely” or “Best Regards.” This information could be considered non-exempt factual information to publicly disclose while the content of the email itself remains redacted and undisclosed under the attorney-client privilege. Completing this type of repeated review is going to cost you– average taxpayer– more than $200 an hour for the Borough’s attorney to do it. What a useless exercise.
As an average taxpayer, you could ask: What are we doing here? Good question.
The legal gymnastics to reach this decision by the Court is confusing as it is concerning. Set aside OOR and the Court turning a blind eye to the fiduciary responsibly of the Borough, considering the legal costs that have piled up to complete an attorney-client privilege exemption log. There is a quite a bit of attorney hours to build exemption log tables, riding a fine line between proving privilege and outright squandering that privilege. These bureaucracies could care less how taxpayer money is spent. In this matter, the Borough has exempted emails as attorney-client privileged from day one. It is a legal privilege available to the Borough. The State and County have agreed those emails are attorney-client privileged. Doesn’t that mean the entirety of the communication is privileged, full stop?
Well, no. OOR and the Court, in a David Blaine type of wizardry, write opinions and decisions that create this illusion or elusiveness of attorney-client privilege. OOR and the Court acknowledge the privilege but still want the Borough to see if those (protected emails) contain any non-exempt factual information that could be disclosed– all without, of course, revealing attorney-client privilege communication. Huh? If the email is privileged, isn’t the entire communication privileged? Why is OOR and the Court making this such a tricky issue? As if this was the Sackler Family and Purdue Pharma trial!
The OOR and Courts set such a high standard for attorney-client privilege in Right-to-Know cases when its completely unnecessary.
Why would the Borough (or any agency) go through the process of extracting non-exempt purely factual information from an otherwise attorney-client privileged communication? In doing this exercise, there is no change in the end result. Say the Borough goes through this exercise of examining and redacting attorney-client privileged emails (however many there may be), revealing only email headings, salutations, and closings, while the email body and content are still off limits. What does this accomplish for the Requestor of the content? Nothing.
None of this furthers or champions government transparency. The Requestor looking for conversations between an agency and their attorney doesn’t get the information they are looking for. The taxpayer spends the money for the agency to defend against these cases. It’s a loss all the way around. A legal stalemate. It’s the taxpayer that loses the most in these instances.
In Bath’s case, the Right-to-Know Law is making it easier to increase legal costs to review this information, yet again. On top of supplying an already established exemption log that neither OOR nor the Court has objected or cared to review. Costly redundancy. The Court missed an opportunity to stand up for and protect the Borough (an entire community) from runaway legal costs generated from one person.
What is even more concerning is the Court’s misguided reliance on a federal discovery case (from 1997 no less; in an era where emails were a new thing, not like how emails are used and relied upon today) and a case much different than this instant appeal. And it wasn’t as if the Court was denying what is protected, in most instances, are the communications themselves. The Court said as much citing from its 1997 archived case.
But the Court focused on one part of its 1997 case. To the extent that purely factual material can be extracted from privileged documents without divulging privileged communication, such information is obtainable. Sure, if that’s the legal standard during the discovery phase in a civil trial!
The Court casually brushed by the Borough’s US Supreme Court case in Upjohn (even older case than the Court’s discovery case), that held facts from an attorney-client privileged communication are privileged because the entire communication is privileged even if existing facts are potentially discoverable outside of a privileged communication. Attorney-client privilege means a client cannot be compelled to answer the question, ‘What did you say or write to the attorney.’
There is well established attorney-client privilege precedent in trial cases that go back decades. Just not that much guidance with attorney-client privilege and its interface with the Right-to-Know Law. The Borough thinks this is a problem.
So how about some perspective: the Right-to-Know Law is administrative law, much lower standard than civil law or at trial. This issue wasn’t a litigation matter to seek information during a discovery phase. This was a low-level Right-to-Know issue where the communications requested between the Borough and its attorney seeking legal advice are protected from disclosure and the Borough proved that. OOR and the Courts need to stop comparing the Right-to-Know Law with rules of discovery in a trial. Right-to-Know matters are not lawsuits; these issues are not one in the same.
It leads agencies to bear the brunt of these public disclosure decisions badly penalizing taxpayers. These types of exercises force agencies to spend money on attorneys to prove exemption status of attorney-client privilege in more than one way: through the exemption logs and affidavits, or attestations, then to comb back through the exempted material again to duplicate the email(s) in redacted form, blanking privileged information–running a silly gambit for a Requestor of such material, ending where these requests usually start, with absolutely nothing gained by the Requestor. Isn’t one method of proving the agency’s attorney-client privilege exemption enough in administrative law?
With playtime over, it’s time to box up the smoke, mirrors and court cases from the 20th Century. The subject emails in this case, even though the Court ultimately sided with OOR’s determination on what should be done with them; through all of this legal rigmarole, whatever the Borough may or may not release, the content of the emails remain protected. The Court could have just said that and spared us all a lot of more nonsense.
Instead, the Court leaves the door open for more of these types of cases to play out. More legal gymnastics at the taxpayers’ expense.
What a useless exercise.
UPDATED April 16, 2025:
Judge Panella denies two more of Mr. Long’s motions. First, the Court tossed an irrelevant affidavit filed by former Council President Mark Saginario, denying Mr. Long’s motion to supplement the record. The Court also denied Mr. Long’s motion for an in-camera review of the subject emails determined to be attorney-client privileged by the Borough. The Order was handed down on April 14th. This case remains open pending a secondary Court Order on the merits of the Borough’s original argument that OOR did not have the authority to mandate the extraction and release of purely factual information in otherwise OOR acknowledged attorney-client privileged emails.
UPDATED January 14, 2025:
The Borough of Bath was back in court today. Stemming from several Motions filed by Mr. Long toward the end of 2024. The Borough however, pounced on the opportunity to move its arguments regarding its petition for review.
Bath used today’s hearing to do two things: 1) clear up Mr. Long’s frivolous Motions that violate a previous Scheduling Order by the Court issued on September 24, 2025, and 2) requested the Court to move past Mr. Long’s attempts to unnecessarily protract this matter and to hear the merits of Bath’s case in reaching a final disposition.
Today, during the Argument Call List, Bath drew Judge Brian Panella (marking the fifth Judge to have presided over this matter. Judges Kassis, Sletvold, Morganelli, and Dally handled this case previously).
Bath presented its case for denying access to attorney-client privilege emails during a RTKL Request. During the hearing, the Borough argued that the OOR agreed the subject emails under review are attorney-client privileged. Where OOR overstepped was asking the Borough to extract purely factual information out of the attorney-client privileged emails, which has never been the law.
Bath relies upon a US Supreme Court ruling in 1981 (Upjohn Co. vs. United States) where OOR has misconstrued the Upjohn ruling, and in doing so, have erred to demand Bath parse through attorney-client privileged communications for purely factual information. Upjohn secures attorney-client privileges.
The Upjohn ruling is more than 40 years of legal precedent. Bath believes overturning this precedent will open agencies up to increased financial burden where agency attorneys will need to parse through communications to disclose purely factual information in a RTK request where such information can be obtained without harming attorney-client privilege. Bath’s position is any ruling that would overturn the Upjohn precedent would grant the RTKL more powers than the legislature has ever intended.
Bath awaits a final Court Order.
UPDATED January 3, 2025:
Over the holidays, Mr. Long continued his pattern of filing dilatory Motions in this case. In fact, Mr. Long filed supplements to this record between December 23rd and December 25th, marking multiple attempts to supplement the record. At one point, Mr. Long’s supplements were denied by Judge Morganelli outright. Yet Mr. Long attempted to have his Motions reconsidered, which was also denied by the Court. Mr. Long was even sanctioned by the Court due to his repeated factually and legally baseless Motions to supplement the record.
It appears Mr. Long will continue to file misguided Motions, even under penalty imposed by the Court for his misconduct and acting in bad faith. However, since this matter is on a scheduling Order dated September 24, 2024, the Borough will seek a just end during the January 14, 2025, Arguments List. While Mr. Long’s Motions attempt to delay and misconstrue the issues in this matter, Bath has this matter situated with the certified record and corresponding arguments before the Court, ready for final disposition during the January 14, 2025, hearing.
UPDATED December 13, 2024:
On December 9, 2024, the Court has found that Mr. Long’s actions filing a “Motion of Protective Order, Sanctions, and Injunctive Relief” and a “Motion for Appointment of Court Experts” were frivolous, vexatious and done so in bad faith. Mr. Long’s Motions were unsupported by legal authority, or were completely irrelevant, and exceeded the scope of the sole issue before the Court. The Court went on to say that Mr. Long has unnecessarily protracted litigation between the parties. As a result of Mr. Long’s conduct, the Court imposed a Sanction in the amount of $1,000 against him.
Should Mr. Long continue with his behavior of filing Motions that are unsupported by legal authority, are irrelevant, or exceed the scope of the sole issue before the Court, with the purpose of being frivolous, vexatious or done so in bad faith, the Borough will file additional Sanctions, as authorized by the Court.
UPDATED November 27, 2024:
On November 26th Bath presented its oral argument for the Court to issue sanctions against Mr. Long for filing motions that are unsupported by legal fact or provided citations to court cases that did not exist.
Attorney Schnee argued that Mr. Long filed a number of documents that either have legal citations completely made up or purport to quote language that is not within the cases quoted. In this particular case, Mr. Long filed two motions in this Right-to-Know Law matter in September, neither of which had any legal or factual basis whatsoever.
Because of Mr. Long’s motions completely lacked any legal or factual support, the Borough, on September 24, hand-delivered two written demands (one for each motion) in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. 1023.2 that he withdraws his motions within 28 days.
Mr. Long, however, did not do so, which forced the Borough to file responses to each of his motions and, review Mr. Long’s briefs in support of his motions and file briefs in opposition to each of Mr. Long’s motions.
Although not permitted by the rules of Northampton County Court, Mr. Long filed two (2) reply briefs, and, with respect to his Reply Brief in connection with his motion seeking a protective order, Mr. Long claimed that 65 P.S. Section 67.1302(a) and City of Philadelphia v. Schweiker, 858 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004) contain language that they do not:
- Paragraph (B)(8)(b) – Mr. Long claims that 1302(a) of the RTKL states that it allows courts to “take any action that may be deemed necessary or appropriate for the proper deposition of the matter.”
- Paragraph (E)(15)(b) – Mr. Long claimed that City of Philadelphia v. Schweiker, 858 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004) states “procedural rules are not ends in themselves but means to the ultimate end of achieving a just determination.”
Bath argued that on October 23, 2024, the Honorable Judge Morganelli issued an order and opinion that held and agreed “there is no basis for the relief sought by” Mr. Long.
Because the Borough had incurred significant legal expenses as a result of Mr. Long’s frivolous and unsupported motions, the Borough filed the instant Motion for Sanctions.
In Mr. Long’s response to the Motion for Sanctions, Mr. Long once again completely makes up cases that do not exist (citing Beam and Waugh cases listed on page 5 and 6 of his response) and purports to quote language from existing cases that is not found in the cases cited (South Whitehall, McGill and Nernberg). Additionally, on pages 9-10 of his response, Mr. Long simply makes up facts with respect to billing, such as asserting that 2.8 hours of time were spent “reviewing a scheduling order” or that 3.2 hours were spent drafting a certificate of service. None of the assertions as to the billing is in any way accurate, and the Borough was happy to submit to the Court unredacted legal invoices and spreadsheets for its in camera review if necessary.
The taxpayers should not have to bear the expense and burden connected with responding to Mr. Long’s frivolous motions.
For purposes of sanctions, Mr. Long’s motions are dilatory in that they have served to delay the ultimate resolution of this case for reasons that have nothing to do with this matter.
Mr. Long’s motions are similarly obdurate, as, even though the Borough has repeatedly noted that he is fabricating cases and misquoting others, he has continued to do so, including with respect to his response to the Motions for Sanctions.
Mr. Long’s motions are also vexatious in that there is not sufficient ground in fact or law for his motions, and his motions were filed for the sole purpose of retaliating against the Borough.
For the purpose of Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1, Mr. Long’s motions were presented for an improper purpose–retaliation due to purported pattern of harassment and intimidation against him (page 6 of Mr. Long’s Motion for Protective Order).
As a result, the Borough respectfully asked the Honorable Court to issue an order sanctioning Mr. Long in the amount of $9,601.11 in order to deter his future misconduct in this matter.
UPDATED August 28, 2024:
The Northampton County Court of Common Pleas has issued its Court Order after the motions hearing on August 20th in this matter. The Court has decided Bath’s first two petitions for review are dismissed as ‘moot’. The Court also decided Michael Long’s Cross-Appeal has been Quashed as being filed untimely. Bath’s third petition for review can move forward for a hearing.
Bath’s third petition argues the Right-to-Know Law does not authorize the review and the public release of attorney-client privileged emails for purely factual information.
Bath is set to have a pre-trial conference on the third petition in September.
Bath’s first county petition (Docket No. 2023-09734) appealed the OOR Final Determination issued November 3, 2023 (OOR AP-2023-1598). Since Bath was required to file its appeal to the county by December 1, 2023, Bath did so. Prior to filing the appeal, Bath did request OOR reconsider its Final Determination. On the last day Bath could file its appeal with the county, OOR partially agreed to reconsider their Final Determination of November 3, 2023. The Court finds that this first county petition is moot as a result, since the Final Determination of November 3, 2023, was reopened on reconsideration. Therefore, it is no longer the Final Determination. Any Motion(s) associated with this first petition (by the Borough or Michael Long) were also dismissed.
In the first petition, there were multiple Motions. The Court noted, “Also at docket number 2023-9734, the Borough of Bath filed a Motion to Strike the Answer, Preliminary Objections, and Counterclaim, filed by Requestor, Michael Long, as well as a Motion to Strike Requester’s Praecipe to Strike Appeal. While Requestor’s filings are procedurally improper, and the Borough’s Motions would otherwise be granted, based upon the above finding that the appeal at 2023-9734 is moot in its entirety, we need not rule on the Borough’s Motions.”
Bath’s second petition (Docket No. 2023-10559) was filed after OOR granted ‘partial’ reconsideration. Bath held that the Final Determination by OOR issued November 3, 2023, was moved under County jurisdiction, since Bath met the filing deadline, and that OOR didn’t have the authority to issue a partial grant of reconsideration under applicable rules. The Court finds that this second petition is moot as well, since the Final Determination of November 3, 2023, was reopened on reconsideration where OOR agreed with two of Bath’s three separate arguments (see above under Synopsis). Any Motion(s) associated with this first petition (by the Borough or Michael Long) were also dismissed.
Bath’s third petition (Docket No. 2024-01039) was filed after OOR issued its Final Determination upon Reconsideration dated January 12, 2024. The Court finds Bath’s third petition has standing and will proceed to hearing. The Court also granted Bath’s Motion to Quash Michael Long Cross-Appeal, as his Cross-Appeal was facially untimely.
During the Motions hearing of August 20th, Michael Long did not dispute his Cross-Appeal was untimely filed. The record concludes that Michael Long filed the Cross-Appeal untimely, then, two months after filing his Cross-Appeal, he filed a Motion of Nunc Pro Tunc relief, claiming the Court Administration committed an error, resulting in his untimely filing. Nunc Pro Tunc relief can be granted, in the Courts discretion, for cases of non-negligence–an extraordinary circumstance beyond one’s control. Such as a lawyers’ paralegal driving to court to deliver a court filing and is involved in a crash along the way that interrupts the delivery of documents for an otherwise timely filing. In such circumstances, Nunc Pro Tunc relief is filed within a manner of days of the issue, not months later. Michael Long argued before Judge Kassis that he didn’t realize he needed to pay for his Cross-Appeal with cash and that the Court Administration is to blame.
See the Court Order below.
UPDATED June 10, 2024:
The Respondent, Michael Long, has filed motions in these matters as a pro se litigant– meaning he’s representing himself. Some motions are clogging the court docket with duplicative arguments that serve no legitimate purpose. In the Respondent’s motions, fake citations are being represented to the Court as genuine. On numerous occasions these motions reference case law that either does not exist or does not stand for the legal propositions being argued. These instances have the signature of improper use of artificial intelligence (AI).
As a result, the Respondent has unnecessarily caused the Borough to expend public funds in researching and evaluating the Respondent’s motions, chock-full of non-existent case citations and faulty legal propositions.
Even if you are representing yourself in a court issue, without an attorney, you are still required to follow procedural rules. And above all, you should not be portraying case citations and legal propositions to the court as genuine when it is not. Instances like this in the legal system are happening more frequently with the availability and use of AI.
These issues will be addressed with the Court for possible sanction relief against the Respondent for this reckless conduct.
Court filings below begin at most recent and descend by filing date. There are 3 tables of information which also list court filings by date for each of the Borough’s 3 petitions for review.
ISSUED 11/03/2023 – Michael Long vs. Bath Borough
Synopsis: Closed by the Office of Open Records on January 12, 2024, determining the following upon reconsideration: (NOTE: Case is pending before the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas (NCCCP))
The 2 Item Request sought all communications, including emails, memos, notes, and text messages, between identified Borough officials, employees and the solicitor for a specific timeframe for a list of 12 topics and a list of all employees hired by the Borough outside of the Public Works Department since January 1, 2022, that contains a list of categories of information for each employee. The Requestor modified the request on appeal. The Office of Open Records (OOR) found the Request may not be modified on appeal. OOR originally determined the Borough’s interpretation of Item 1 was unreasonable. Upon reconsideration, the Office of Open Records found the Borough’s interpretation of Item 1, was, in fact, reasonable. OOR originally determined the Borough had not proved that no additional records responsive to Item 1 existed. Upon reconsideration, the OOR determined the Borough has proven that no additional records responsive to Item 1 exist. The Borough proved that some records are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Borough proved that no responsive records exist for Item 2 as stated by Requestor, but the Borough exercised its discretion to provide responsive information in another format. Borough failed to certify the responsive records. The record does not support a finding of bad faith. Granted in part, denied in part, dismissed as moot in part.
Bath originally challenged OOR’s Final Determination arguing OOR erred in (1) impermissibly refashioning the Request to seek certain alleged public records between less than the entire group of listed persons; (2) potentially granting access to such potential records other than emails; and (3) potentially granting access to part(s) of records that would reveal attorney-client privileged communications.
OOR upon reconsideration, recognized Bath’s arguments #1 and #2 but departed from recognizing argument #3. In doing so, OOR has also breached its duty under applicable regulation (1 Pa. Code § 35.241(f)) which only permits an agency to fully grant or fully deny a petition for reconsideration. OOR has not provided any evidence; within the text of the law or judicial precedent during these proceedings that it has the right to partially grant Reconsideration.
OOR has directed the Borough to review the records and email attachments claimed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege to determine whether they contain non-exempt factual information and provide records redacted as set forth in its January 12, 2024, Final Determination upon reconsideration. The Borough is challenging OOR’s decision upon reconsideration and its application of rules. (See County Court Docket information below.)
Bath’s Court Challenge of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records:
The Borough of Bath has filed a petition for statutory review with the NCCCP regarding OOR’s final determination upon reconsideration, and among other things, that the OOR has abused its discretion ordering the Borough to take actions that jeopardize attorney-client privilege doctrine. No agency in the Commonwealth should be directed under the Right-to-Know Law to sift and labor through attorney-client communications (for example, within an email) parsing out purely factual information from attorney-client privileged information.
The Borough believes, unequivocally, the OOR does not have the authority to require an agency disclose “purely factual” information that would reveal the subject matter of privileged communications.
To further illustrate: the Borough recognizes that an email between, for example, the Borough Manager and Solicitor, discussing the start time of a Council meeting is purely factual in nature and subject to public access. The Borough is challenging OOR’s position that if an email between the Borough Manager and Solicitor, discussing legal advice (attorney-client privilege) about a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and the CBA is attached to the email, an otherwise public document, the Borough should not be compelled to review the email, redact the legal advice, and release the CBA. Especially when the CBA can be publicly released without revealing the Solicitor provided advice on a labor issue.
OOR is taking a dangerous, and frankly, illegal position. OOR is placing agencies through an unnecessary exercise in legal review only serving to heavily tax an agency for the sake of transparency, even though transparency can be met by other less intrusive means. More so when numerous emails are subject to the type of review OOR is demanding, whether in Bath’s instant case or any future cases across the Commonwealth.
OOR’s stance in this case resembles activism, especially where OOR is blurring the otherwise clearly drawn line of attorney-client privilege. This idea that municipal Solicitor’s should somehow violate their duty to their client by making subjective determinations as to what is purely factual information from attorney-client privileged information in any range of communications; notes, texts, letters, (to include emails), is simply not the law and attempts to rewrite precedent. Again, this creates the condition for runaway legal costs to be incurred by an agency to perform these reviews. In Bath’s case, this only serves to penalize the broader public tax base. Access to an otherwise public record must be granted when such record is not a part of attorney-client privileged information.
Interestingly in this matter, the Borough provided OOR a complete privilege log of attorney-client emails. OOR could have conducted an ‘in-camera’ review of those records but chose not to. OOR shirked this review and shifted the burden to Bath’s taxpayers to re-check emails, in addition to reviewing any other emails not originally within the scope of this Request. To protect Bath (and any agency in Northampton County for that matter) the Borough intends to argue and ultimately seek an end to OOR’s ridiculous attorney-client privilege position.
UPDATED June 25, 2025:
Office of Open Records Docket Entries (58 Entries):
| Filed | Description |
| 06/24/2025 | Court Order Denying Borough’s Petition for Review (15 pages) |
| 04/14/2025 | Court Order Denying Motions [Against Requestor] and Sanctions (50 pages) |
| 12/09/2024 | Court Order Imposing Sanctions [Against Requestor] (1 page) |
| 10/23/2024 | Court Order Denying Requestor Motions (11 Pages) |
| 08/28/2024 | Court Order Dismissing Cross-Appeal as Untimely (2 Pages) |
| 08/28/2024 | Court Order Dismissing Appeal as Moot (2 Pages) |
| 08/28/2024 | Court Order Dismissing Appeal as Moot (2 Pages) |
| 04/10/2024 | Requestor Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot (8 Pages) |
| 04/08/2024 | Requestor Motion to Supplement Record (45 Pages) |
| 04/08/2024 | Requestor Motion to File Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc (25 Pages) |
| 04/08/2024 | Requestor Response to Motion to Quash Cross Appeal (29 Pages) |
| 04/04/2024 | Requestor Motion to Strike Answer (104 Pages) |
| 04/04/2024 | Requestor Motion to Strike Motion to Quash (92 Pages) |
| 04/04/2024 | Requestor Response to Agency Answer (88 Pages) |
| 04/04/2024 | Requestor Motion to Strike Praecipe (96 Pages) |
| 04/04/2024 | Requestor Response to Motion to Strike Answer (104 Pages) |
| 03/01/2024 | Requestor Cross Appeal (130 Pages) |
| 02/28/2024 | OOR Certified Record (611 Pages) |
| 02/22/2024 | OOR Certified Record (611 Pages) |
| 02/09/2024 | Court Writ of Certiorari (2 Pages) |
| 02/09/2024 | Agency Petition for Review (90 Pages) |
| 01/22/2024 | OOR Certified Record (605 Pages) |
| 01/12/2024 | OOR Final Determination Upon Reconsideration (39 Pages) |
| 01/09/2024 | Requestor Correspondence (6 Pages) |
| 01/09/2024 | Requestor Correspondence (7 Pages) |
| 12/29/2023 | Requestor Correspondence (2 Pages) |
| 12/29/2023 | Requestor Position Statement (2 Pages) |
| 12/29/2023 | Requestor Correspondence (1 Page) |
| 12/28/2023 | Agency Correspondence (1 Page) |
| 12/28/2023 | Agency Court Filing (96 Pages) |
| 12/27/2023 | Court Writ of Certiorari (1 Page) |
| 12/27/2023 | Agency Petition for Review (51 Pages) |
| 12/20/2023 | Agency Correspondence (1 Page) |
| 12/20/2023 | Requestor Correspondence (4 Pages) |
| 12/19/2023 | Requestor Position Statement (2 Pages) |
| 12/18/2023 | Agency Correspondence (2 Pages) |
| 12/18/2023 | Requestor Position Statement (1 Page) |
| 12/18/2023 | Requestor Position Statement (1 Page) |
| 12//17/2023 | Requestor Position Statement (2 Pages) |
| 12/13/2023 | OOR Correspondence – Reconsideration (1 Page) |
| 12/11/2023 | Agency Correspondence (2 Pages) |
| 12/11/2023 | Requestor Position Statement (1 Page) |
| 12/11/2023 | Requestor Position Statement (91 Pages) |
| 12/08/2023 | Requestor Correspondence (2 Pages) |
| 12/08/2023 | Requestor Position Statement (98 Pages) |
| 12/07/2023 | OOR Correspondence (4 Pages) |
| 12/01/2023 | Entry of Appearance (1 Page) |
| 12/01/2023 | OOR Grant of Petition for Reconsideration (1 Page) |
| 11/17/2023 | Agency Entry of Appearance (1 Page) |
| 11/17/2023 | Agency Petition for Reconsideration (36 Pages) |
| 11/03/2023 | OOR Final Determination (32 Pages) |
| 07/13/2023 | Requestor Appeal (2 Pages) |
| 07/24/2023 | Entry of Appearance (1 Page) |
| 07/24/2023 | Entry of Appearance Request (24 Pages) |
| 07/13/2023 | OOR Notice of Deadlines (1 Page) |
| 07/13/2023 | OOR Acknowledgement (7 Pages) |
| 07/13/2023 | OOR Additional Extension (1 Page) |
| 07/13/2023 | Requestor Appeal (56 Pages) |
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – PENDING NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Northampton County Court of Common Pleas Docket History
TABLE 1 – Borough of Bath Petition of Review #1 Pennsylvania Office of Open Records Partially Grants and Partially Denies Bath’s Request for Reconsideration; Borough Opposes November 3, 2023, Final Determination. COURT DISMISSED PETITION AS MOOT ON AUGUST 28, 2024.
TABLE 2 – Borough of Bath Petition for Review #2 Pennsylvania Office of Open Records Retains Jurisdiction of Matter Even After Borough Files NCCCP Petition for Review; Borough Opposes COURT DISMISSED PETITION AS MOOT ON AUGUST 28, 2024.
TABLE 3 – Borough of Bath Petition #3 Pennsylvania Office of Open Records Issues January 12, 2024, Final Determination Upon Reconsideration; Borough Opposes MOTION TO QUASH MR. LONG’S CROSS-APPEAL IS GRANTED BY COURT. PETITION PROCEEDS.
Access to Court Documents
On November 13, 2024, Bath received an Application for Continuance from Mr. Long. In the application, Mr. Long submits the following reason: “Requesting continuance only for the hearing on the Borough’s Motion for Sanctions due to overlapping deadlines and need for adequate time to prepare a response.” Bath filed an opposition statement: “There are no overlapping deadlines here, as the Borough’s brief in support of its appeal is due 11/22/24, and Respondent’s brief is due 30 days from service per 9/24/24 Order. Respondent has until 11/21/24 to file a responsive brief to this motion. Respondent had notice of need to withdraw frivolous motion.” (See Application for Motion which is not a document docketed with the Court.) Then, on November 15, 2024, Bath received the action taken by the court to refuse Mr. Long’s application. However, under section III of the application where Mr. Long states his reason for continuance, Mr. Long added language to the application the Borough was unaware of as follows: “Timeline fails to abide by agreement signed off by judge in pretrial conference which provided me with additional time to respond as pro se.” Mr. Long has inappropriately refashioned the Application for Continuance after the Borough’s attorney signed the form, which may cause the Borough to file additional sanctions against Mr. Long for his misconduct. In any event, Mr. Long’s Application for Continuance is refused by the Court. (See second Application for Motion, copy signed by Judge Dally, which is not docketed with the Court.)
On November 8, 2024, the Borough emailed Mr. Long another Demand Letter relative to Mr. Long’s Motion for Reconsideration. This new demand letter is not part of the Court Docket but is incorporated with the overall record for public review.
On September 24, 2024, and after a pre-trial conference in this matter, the Borough delivered to Mr. Long two Demand Letters relative to Mr. Long’s Motion for Court Appointed Expert Witnesses and Motion for a Protective Order. These Demand Letters are not part of the Court Docket but is incorporated with the overall record for public review.
NOTE: Attorney Schnee’s letter to Michael Long, dated June 10th is not part of the Court Docket, but is incorporated as part of the Borough’s June 11th Response to Respondent’s Motion of June 10th. The June 10th letter to Michael Long was read into the Borough Council meeting minutes of June 10th, 2024.
The above Opinion and Order of the Court dated April 14, 2025 is enclosed as a single document.
In a November 5th filing, Mr. Long continues his campaign of abuse of process by filing a new Motion for the Courts to reconsider its denial Order. Once again, Mr. Long has filed a court document that contains false legal citations or legal theory that does not support Mr. Long’s legal positions. For example, in paragraph 4, Mr. Long cites to Moore v. Moore, while the case does involve reconsideration, it does not set forth the premise Mr. Long cites it for as to when reconsideration is appropriate. Mr. Long also cites Commonwealth v. Morris, which is a criminal case having nothing to do with reconsideration matters whatsoever. Mr. Long’s use of inappropriate or non-existent legal citations does not stop there.
In paragraph 6, Mr. Long cites Leone v. Commonwealth, which here again, has nothing to do with reconsideration matters whatsoever. In paragraph 7, Mr. Long cites In re Rutter’s Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 1:20-CV-382, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 136220 (M.D. Pa. July 22, 2021), which is a federal case from another district that is not binding on the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas and does not discuss the need for “expert analysis” with respect to “the authenticity and integrity of digital records” as Mr. Long states.
Mr. Long’s new 13-page filing contains a Declaration from former Council President Mark Saginario dated November 3, 2024. This attestation, provided by Mr. Saginario, signed under penalty of perjury that the information submitted is true and correct, does in fact, contain significant falsehoods and contradictions.
- Under paragraph #6, Saginario claims, while in Executive Session of Bath Borough Council on October 4, 2021, he announced his ‘immediate resignation’ yet, Saginario entered public session where he did not tender this resignation at all. Then, under paragraph #9(b), Saginario admits having tendered his resignation in the form of a letter, dated December 31, 2021. Saginario’s resignation was not accepted by Council until January 3, 2022. Saginario contradicts himself in his declaration. Further Saginario’s resignation letter is on file with this matter.
- Saginario has left out other details of his discussion with Council and legal while in Executive Session during the October 4, 2021, meeting. While Executive Session discussions are exempt from public disclosure, Saginario was given information that caused him to pause his ‘immediate resignation’ which is why he never actually tendered his resignation until the latter part of 2021.
- Under paragraph #9(b), Saginario claims “[r]eceiving one phone call from the borough manager requesting [he] amend [his] resignation date to December 31, 2021, for accounting purposes.” However, this isn’t true. Saginario also received an email from Manager Flynn on October 19, 2021, providing Saginario a form resignation letter to submit to Borough Council. The form letter Saginario used to actually tender his resignation.
- At paragraph #11, Saginario claimed “[his] borough email access was terminated within approximately two weeks of [his] verbal resignation.” Saginario’s claim is completely false. According to Saginario’s statement, he didn’t have access to Borough emails after approximately October 28, 2021. Borough records indicate Saginario was using his Borough email, quite extensively, from late October through December 16, 2021.
- Saginario’s use of his Bath borough email exchange From October 5, 2021, to December 31, 2021:
| Sent From Bath Borough Exchange/To | Subject | Date | Attachments |
| Mark Saginario / Elizabeth Bolstad CABT | RE: Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT) Meeting Request | December 16, 2021 | None. Mark responds. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: 2022 Borough Budget | December 9, 2021 | 2022 General Fund – Draft 3, 2022; Capital Improvement Fund Budget – Draft 3; 2022 Solid Waste & Recycling Fund Budget – Draft 3; 2022 Highway Aid Fund Budget – Draft 3; Ordinance No. 2021-714 Tax Rate for 2022 |
| Mark Saginario/ Bath Borough Council and Code Official | RE: Christmas Gathering – Sun., December 5th – 5MP – My Place Restaurant | November 8, 2021 | None. Mark responds. |
| Mark Saginario / Bath Borough Council, Engineer, Solicitor & Office Staff | RE: November Council Meeting Agenda & Packet | November 7, 2021 | None. Mark responds. |
| Mark Saginario / Sheryl Reese | FWD: CONCERNS | October 27, 2021 | None. Mark forwards an email from the Mayor addressed to Borough Council. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Laws Affecting Local Governments Become Effective on August 30, 2021 | October 26, 2021 | None. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: PennDOT iTMS link – LVPC Transportation Committee | October 26, 2021 | None. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Traffic Study | October 26, 2021 | Traffic Study. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Rental Inspection Program | October 26, 2021 | RI&R Real Estate Transfer CO_Disruptive Property_Cost Analysis Packet. Draft documents. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Quality of Life Ticketing & Chapter 419 – Nuisances (Motor Vehicle Amendments) | October 26, 2021 | Proposed Bath Quality of Life Ordinance_V5_03.20.2020 JFK; Proposed Bath Quality of Life Ordinance_V5_JFK_clean; 03-2-20 BTF revised – MOTOR VEHICLE NUISANCE NOTICES 5 x 7 clean; 02-28-20 JFK revisions to BTF revisions Motor Vehicle Nuisances_clean; 02-28-20 JFK revisions to BTF revisions Motor Vehicle Nuisances. Draft documents. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Quality of Life – Final Draft Prior to Wednesday Meeting | October 26, 2021 | BTF Bath Violation Ticket Dravet_03.05.2020_Final; Proposed Ordinance No. 2020-692 Bath Quality of Life Ordinance_V6_03.09.2020_Final. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | Fw: Fw: | October 26, 2021 | 20 November 2008; 1 Dec. 2008; Upward Appraisal; Appraisal Defs; Performance Appraisal; 983969_1; Resume. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Task List | October 26, 2021 | Task List-Revised. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Committee Listing | October 26, 2021 | 2020-2021 Committees w_Calendar 01.28.2020. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Employee Evaluation Form – Borough of Bath_10.01.2019 to 09.30.2020_FLYNN | October 26, 2021 | Manager Flynn’s personnel file. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: FEMA IGA Introductory Letter to Mark Saginario, Council President of the Borough of Bath, Northampton County | October 16, 2021 | FEMA IGA Introductory Letter to Mark Saginario, Council President of the Borough of Bath, Northampton County. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Letter to State Legislators | October 6, 2021 | Forwarded information from Manager Flynn. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: 2022 Solid Waste & Recycling Fund | October 5, 2021 | None. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: 2022 Borough Budget | October 5, 2021 | 2022 General Fund Budget – Draft 3; 2022 Capital Improvement Fund Budget – Draft 3; 2022 Solid Waste & Recycling Fund Budget – Draft 3; 2022 Highway Aid Fund Budget – Draft 3; Ordinance No. 2021-714 Tax Rate for 2022. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: October Council Meeting Agenda & Packet | October 5, 2021 | Borough Council Agenda 10.04.2021; October Council Meeting. |
| Mark Saginario / Mark Saginario Tatamy PA | FWD: Legislative Updates to the MPC | October 5, 2021 | Request for MPC Legislative Updates – Bath. |
The Borough will continue to fight on behalf of its residents to counter these unjustified, frivolous, and vexatious attempts by Mr. Long, and his associates, senseless abuse of process.
On November 8, 2024, Bath intends to file a Demand Letter with Mr. Long for him to remove this present Motion or face new sanctions.
On November 12, 2024, the Court issued an ORDER denying Mr. Long’s Motion for Reconsideration.
