OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
WPXI, Inc. (WPXI) appeals from the May 22, 2015 order that denied its motion to intervene and obtain access to public judicial records. Because WPXI has obtained the requested documents, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
The following underlying facts are not in dispute. In early 2015, allegations of improper sexual relations between faculty and students at Allegheny County's Plum High School became public. In covering the ongoing news story surrounding the contentions and resulting grand jury investigation into them, WPXI, a Pittsburgh-based television station, presented to the trial judge serving as the supervising judge of the grand jury a motion to intervene and to access public judicial records. Therein, WPXI averred, upon information and belief, that the trial court had on May 18, 2015, issued (1) a warrant authorizing a search at the Plum High School Administration Building, and (2) an order sealing the affidavit of probable cause that supported the search warrant.
On June 17, 2015, WPXI timely filed a notice of appeal. WPXI asks this Court to determine that the trial court should have granted its motion and given it access to the search warrant and the sealing order. WPXI's Brief at 4. Before we address the questions raised by WPXI, we must consider whether any controversy remains for us to decide, or whether the appeal is moot.
"The mootness doctrine requires that an actual case or controversy must be extant at all stages of review...."
The relief WPXI seeks in the instant appeal is to be granted access to the search warrant and the trial court order sealing the affidavit of probable cause. Appellant's Brief at 20. Yet, WPXI acknowledges that it has access to both documents.
However, "if the issues raised by an appeal are `substantial questions' or `questions of public importance,' and are capable of repetition, yet likely to evade appellate review, then we will reach the merits of the appeal despite its technical mootness."
Although the issues raised by WPXI appear to be of public importance, we are not persuaded that they are apt to avoid review. It does not seem likely to this Court that repeated attempts to intervene and obtain documents will be denied by a trial court, but each time another source will provide the sought-after documents before an appellate court is able to review the propriety of the trial court's actions.
Having determined that WPXI's issues are moot, but not likely to evade appellate review if repeated, we dismiss WPXI's appeal.