Regarding the sua sponte nature of the order, PSP argues that analogous restrictions on that power “are of little value in interpreting a law without parallel.” 38 Finally, because it always maintained that the Burig Affidavit is sufficient, PSP contends that “only the court . . . was in a position to elicit further development of the record.” 39 Accordingly, PSP argues that it should be allowed the opportunity to further substantiate its position on remand. In reviewing the Commonwealth Court’s sua sponte remand of this case for further factual development, we determine whether that court abused its discretion. Our scope of review is plenary. 40 We find that the panel below committed an abuse of discretion because its decision had no basis in the text and structure of the RTKL, nor in the record, and because it exceeded its limited power to act sua sponte. Initially, we observe the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion in Bowling that, “in the absence of a specific restriction, a court deciding a statutory appeal has the inherent authority to take reasonable measures to ensure that a record sufficient for judicial review exists.” 41 In the context of the RTKL, the Commonwealth Court has exercised this authority to remand disclosure requests to OOR when there were outstanding questions of fact, 42 when an identified and relevant party did not have an opportunity to be heard Id. at 18 (citing PSP II, 232 A.3d at 664 (“[T]he RTKL has no analog in other administrative or quasi-judicial frameworks . . . [.]”)). 38 39 Id. at 19. 40 Eiseman, 125 A.3d at 29. Bowling v. OOR, 990 A.2d 813, 822 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (“Bowling I”) (citing Appeal of Borough of Churchill, 575 A.2d 550 (Pa. 1990)). 41 See, e.g., Pysher v. Clinton Twp. Volunteer Fire Co., 209 A.3d 1116, 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (remanding to determine whether a fire company qualified as a local agency under the RTKL); Dep’t of Labor and Indus. v. Earley, 126 A.3d 355, 358 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (remanding to determine whether requested email records, which had been deleted, might still exist on a server); McGowan v. Pa. Dep’t of Env. Prot., 103 A.3d (…continued) 42 [J-3-2023] - 9