Does Delaware FOIA make my agency convert raw data from HTML to CSV when I ask for it as a database file?
Official title
19-IB53 9/17/2019 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Craig O'Donnell re: FOIA Complaint Concerning The Department of Safety and Homeland Security
Plain-English summary
Craig O'Donnell of the Dover Post asked the Delaware State Police on January 15, 2019 for individual incident-level data for Part I offenses 2014-2016, in CSV/database/spreadsheet format. He explicitly said he did not want to require DSP to create new records and offered flexibility. DSP acknowledged on January 24 that the request was in legal review with an estimated 15-business-day update. Seven months passed with no further communication. On August 27, 2019, DSP produced HTML files. O'Donnell petitioned, raising nine separate complaints: missed deadlines and updates, no clarification request, format mismatch, "constructive denial," and inconsistency with prior DSP positions on data exports.
The AG sided with DSP on every substantive point but flagged the timing as concerning. The mootness doctrine ended the timeliness claim once DSP produced records. On format, FOIA does not require an agency to convert existing files into a requester's preferred format (17-IB13, 04-IB14). DSP's counsel represented that the produced files were the only format DSP had, and the AG accepted that representation. FOIA does not require a separate cover letter explaining a response, does not require the FOIA Coordinator to discuss alternatives if there are none to discuss, and does not impose a 24-hour reply window on follow-up emails. The AG closed by recommending DSP "provide more timely communications in the future."
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
Why doesn't FOIA require format conversion?
The opinion cites 17-IB13 and 04-IB14 for the proposition that FOIA reaches existing records in their existing form. Section 10003(a) speaks of inspection and copying, not transformation. If the agency holds data only as HTML reports, FOIA does not compel an Excel export.
Is producing HTML the same as producing nothing?
For practical research use, the difference matters. HTML can be parsed but is more cumbersome than a flat-file format. The AG's framing leaves the requester to do downstream extraction. If a requester wants a different format, the leverage is the request itself: ask for "any database export the agency can produce with reasonable effort," and let the agency negotiate.
Was the seven-month delay a violation?
The AG did not formally find a § 10003(h) violation, framing the timing claims as moot once records arrived. But the opinion's "we recommend DSP provide more timely communications" close is a clear signal that the conduct was substandard.
What does "constructive denial" mean and did it apply?
The petitioner argued that DSP's prolonged silence followed by a format-mismatched production amounted to a refusal to respond. The AG did not explicitly accept that framing; once records arrived, the timeliness question went to mootness. A more aggressive AG might have treated prolonged silence as a constructive denial, but this opinion did not.
Doesn't this conflict with DSP's other position that database exports are "new records"?
The petitioner pressed this contradiction, citing 19-IB44 (where DSP refused traffic-stop data as a "new record"). The AG navigated past it by noting that DSP "may voluntarily release" records and that providing existing HTML files does not establish that exporting raw database content is universally required.
Background and statutory framework
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program is the FBI's voluntary national crime statistics system; participating agencies submit data in defined fields. State agencies typically generate UCR submissions from internal databases. The journalist's request sought the underlying incident-level data, not the aggregated statistics that DSP publishes annually.
Section 10003(a) is the right-of-access provision: inspection and copying of public records. The "no format conversion" rule comes from AG opinions interpreting that section. 17-IB13 holds that "FOIA does not require a public body to convert existing information into a new format to respond to a FOIA request." 04-IB14 says that "FOIA does not require an agency to make a summary or compilation of information in public records, or to produce computerized data in a special format requested by a citizen."
The mootness doctrine is fully developed elsewhere (Flowers v. Office of the Governor, Chem. Indus. Council). Once records arrive, the petition's request for relief evaporates.
Citations
- 29 Del. C. §§ 10002(l), 10003(a), 10003(g)(2), 10005
- Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB13, 2017 WL 3426251 (July 6, 2017)
- Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 04-IB14, 2004 WL 1547683 (June 28, 2004)
- Flowers v. Office of the Governor, 167 A.3d 530, 546 (Del. Super. 2017)
- Chem. Indus. Council of Del., Inc. v. State Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., 1994 WL 274295 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1994)
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2019/09/17/19-ib53-9-17-2019-foia-opinion-letter-to-mr-craig-odonnell-re-foia-complaint-concerning-the-department-of-safety-and-homeland-security/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2019/10/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-19-IB53.pdf
Original opinion text
PRINT VERSION: Attorney General Opinion No. 19-IB53
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 19-IB53
September 17, 2019
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Craig O'Donnell
Dover Post
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security / Delaware State Police
Dear Mr. O'Donnell:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Delaware State Police ("DSP") violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007 ("FOIA") in connection with your request for records. We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 regarding whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussed below, while we do not determine that DSP has violated FOIA as alleged, we recommend DSP provide more timely communications in the future.
BACKGROUND
You sent DSP a request on January 15, 2019 seeking the following:
[A]n electronic copy of data for individual Part I offenses reported or known to police from 2014-2016, as compiled for purposes of participating in the FBI's national Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system and other incident tracking purposes. For each individual UCR Part I offense known to police, please provide the following data fields:
The incident number of the offense, Incident/offense date, Type of offense, Unfounded (yes/no), Unfounded Date, Clearance Date, Arrest Date, Type of clearance, Exceptional clearance type.
It is our understanding your agency participates in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program, and has for years regularly compiled and reported crime statistics in a manner that complies with the requirements of that program.
We specifically request to receive the bulk of this information in a useable electronic format. Data records should be provided in a format such as a delimited text/CSV, or database file such as Microsoft Access database or Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Data records should NOT be provided as a PDF file or other non-useable electronic format, nor on paper, without first checking with us.
In the event you no longer have incident level data in electronic form going back to 2014, please provide as much electronic data as you do currently have in your possession. It is our intention to work with your agency on this request. We do not wish you to create any new sets of information, or to go to great lengths to re-create older information.
On January 24, 2019, DSP's FOIA Coordinator acknowledged receipt of your request, advised that it had been sent for legal review, and stated that an update would be provided within fifteen business days. However, you did not receive any further response from DSP until August 27, 2019. You then filed a Petition, alleging the following:
DSP failed to provide any notice about the request between January 24 and August 27, 2019 regarding the "untimely delay" in providing records. DSP did not contact you to clarify what you were seeking and consequently provided records which are not responsive to your request. DSP did not provide a good faith estimate of how long it would take to complete a response to your request. The documents provided are not responsive to the request and appear to be database printouts of annual summaries. DSP did not withhold the documents and state that it would require creating new records, as DSP previously stated with regard to other requests. DSP provided the records as HTML files when DSP should have claimed responsive records "could not be provided because they are not documents exported to Excel." DSP did not provide a separate letter with the response to explain why you did not receive what you requested. DSP did not respond within 24 hours to your request for clarification of the issues raised in item 6 above. DSP's response is a "constructive denial."
On September 4, 2019, DSP's counsel replied to your Petition ("Response"). DSP denies violating FOIA and requests that the petition be dismissed as moot because DSP provided all responsive documents in its possession. In response to item 1, DSP asserts that its January 24, 2019 email complied with FOIA's response requirements because it was sent six business days after your request was received and notified you of a permissible reason that the response would take another estimated fifteen business days. For item 2, DSP disputes that it needed clarity to respond to your request. For item 3, DSP acknowledges that it did not provide any updates between January 24 and August 27, 2019 but claims there is no evidence it acted in bad faith. DSP also notes that you contacted them regarding other FOIA requests during this time and did not request any update on this, though acknowledging you are not obligated to do so.
In response to issues 4 through 7 and 9, DSP asserts that "FOIA does not require a public body to create a new document in response to a record request; however, FOIA does require that a public body allow access to a document in its available format," and because the documents were made available to you in the only format DSP had, there was no need to contact you regarding format. DSP also notes that this Office has previously held that FOIA does not preclude a public body from voluntarily releasing a record. DSP asserts in response to item 7 that FOIA does not require a cover letter or other explanatory document.
In response to item 8, DSP disputes your allegation that it did not reply to your email with questions within 24 hours and argues FOIA does not have this requirement. DSP provided exhibits showing that you asked on August 28, 2019 if there was a cover letter or if you needed to file a FOIA request for such and that the DSP FOIA Coordinator responded a few hours later.
DISCUSSION
Your claims can be grouped into two categories: allegations regarding DSP's initial process in responding to the request and allegations regarding the response itself. First, we determine that the claims regarding DSP's initial process in responding to your request are now moot, as DSP has provided a response enclosing the records it deems responsive. However, we recommend DSP provide more timely communications.
Second, we reviewed the claims regarding DSP's response and find no violation of FOIA. FOIA does not prohibit the disclosure of records but merely gives the public body the grounds to withhold records exempt from the definition of "public records." Moreover, DSP's counsel represents that DSP produced the files responsive to the request in the only format available to DSP and "containing existing fields," and in accordance with past practice, our Office accepts this representation regarding the existence of records. FOIA does not require a public body to convert its existing files into other formats. FOIA does not require a public body to explain why the provided records are responsive, send a separate cover letter, or respond to emails received in its normal course of business within certain timeframes. Finally, although DSP acknowledges the FOIA Coordinator did not contact you to state the records would not be produced in the desired format as you requested, DSP alleges this communication was not necessary, as there were no formatting options to discuss. We do not believe that these circumstances rise to the level of a FOIA violation.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, while we do not determine that DSP has violated FOIA as alleged, we recommend DSP provide more timely communications in the future.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Alexander S. Mackler
Alexander S. Mackler
Chief Deputy Attorney General
cc: Lisa M. Morris, Deputy Attorney General
Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General