deficiency—simply gave PSP a fresh opportunity to carry its burden of proving that an exception to the disclosure rule applied. In the context of the RTKL, we conclude that the court abused its discretion. 53 As this Court has recognized, “various provisions of the RTKL demonstrate an intent for an expedited determination of RTKL requests,” 54 and for disputes to be resolved “in an efficient and timely fashion.”55 The law’s predecessors, the Right-to-Know Acts of 1957 and 2002, set forth no time limit within which an agency was bound to respond to a request for disclosure, and appellate review was limited to determining whether an agency’s denial was supported by “just and proper cause.”56 Requesters bore the burden of demonstrating that a record was a “public record” and that they were entitled to see it. 57 The General Assembly passed the RTKL in 2008, overhauling that process. Agencies now bear the burden of proving an exception to the presumption that all records The Dissent contends that we "[fail] to address” the fact that “this Court told” the Commonwealth Court to do “exactly” what it did. See Dissenting Op. at 3. 53 We elucidate this Court’s statement in PSP II—which, importantly, did not specifically instruct the Commonwealth Court to order additional fact-finding, but only recognized that it retained the discretion to do so—by contrasting the expansive view that the Dissent adopts with the way in which this discretion has been wielded in the foregoing examples. Cf. PSP II, 232 A.3d at 665 (“[E]ven where broad discretion is granted, it may be abused.”). As discussed below, if PSP had requested the opportunity for additional fact-finding, our disposition today may have been different. See infra p.14. But PSP did not. 54 Levy v. Senate of Pa., 65 A.3d 361, 381 (Pa. 2013). Bowling II, 75 A.3d at 474. The Dissent reads Bowling II and Levy to stand for the proposition that the RTKL “is designed to provide expedient transparency of non-exempt records,” Dissenting Op. at 5 (emphasis in original), but this Court has made no such distinction and we decline to make it here. The RTKL provides for the expedient determination of all requests, regardless of their outcome. 55 56 See id. at 455 (discussing the progression from the RTKA to the RTKL). 57 Id. [J-3-2023] - 12