Must Wilmington compile a custom Excel of parking ticket data with appeal status if no single record contains all the requested fields?

Plain-English summary

Erin Markham asked the City of Wilmington for "an Excel data report of all parking tickets issued within the limits of the City of Wilmington" between January 2021 and May 2022, with a long list of fields: citation number, date and time of issuance, location, code and violation description, comments, issuing officer, fine amount, date of appeal, ruling on appeal, date of ruling, date of request for court hearing, date court hearing was processed, date of scheduled court hearing, date and amount paid.

The City produced an Excel spreadsheet that included some but not all of the requested data. Specifically, the appeal-related fields and court-hearing-related fields were missing. Markham petitioned, arguing the spreadsheet was incomplete and that she could not interpret it without explanation.

The City's response included a sworn affidavit from the Parking Services Supervisor, who attested that no single record exists in the City's systems containing all the requested data. To create such a record, City staff would have to "review the data extract and manually update the spreadsheet with the additional information."

The AG sided with the City on both points:

1. No-create rule. Delaware FOIA does not require a public body to create a new record from disparate data sources to satisfy a request. The City's sworn affidavit established that the requested cross-system spreadsheet does not exist as a single record. Multiple AG opinions have applied this rule (20-IB12, 17-IB61, 17-IB32, 17-IB02, 06-IB17).

2. No requirement to interpret data. FOIA requires production of existing public records in their existing format. It does not require the agency to explain what fields mean, attach a data dictionary, or interpret abbreviations.

What this means for you

If you are a Delaware data journalist or researcher

The opinion holds that FOIA does not require a public body to create a new record to satisfy a request. Where, as here, no single record contains all the requested fields and producing one would require staff to extract data and manually update a spreadsheet, the agency can decline to build it. The agency met its FOIA obligation by producing the existing Excel export, even though that export was missing some of the requested fields.

If you handle FOIA at a Delaware municipality

What carried the City's position was a sworn affidavit from the Parking Services Supervisor attesting that no single record contained all the requested data and describing the manual work that compiling one would require. The opinion ties that to the rule from Judicial Watch v. University of Delaware that, in some circumstances, sworn factual support is needed to meet the public body's burden of proof.

If you are a Wilmington resident wanting to understand parking enforcement

The opinion confirms the City produced the parking-ticket data it had in spreadsheet form. It holds that FOIA did not require the City to assemble the missing appeal and court-hearing fields into one record, and that FOIA does not require the City to explain or interpret the data it produced. The opinion does not address where the missing appeal or court records are kept.

Common questions

Q: What is the no-create rule?
A: As the opinion states it, FOIA requires a public body to provide reasonable access to existing public records, but does not require the creation of a new document to respond to a request. The AG cited prior opinions applying that rule (20-IB12, 17-IB61, 17-IB32, 17-IB02, and 06-IB17).

Q: Does the no-create rule mean the agency can refuse to give me anything in a useful format?
A: No. If the agency has the data in a particular format (e.g., an Excel export), you are entitled to it in that format. The no-create rule applies when no existing record matches your request, not when the agency just doesn't want to bother.

Q: Why did the affidavit matter?
A: Under Judicial Watch, the agency's denial requires sworn factual support. The Supervisor's affidavit explained that no single record contains all the requested fields and that compiling one would require manual extraction. That meets the burden.

Q: Can I demand the agency interpret abbreviations or data fields for me?
A: No, under FOIA. The agency might do so as a courtesy, but it is not required to. If the data dictionary exists as a separate document, you can request that.

Q: What if I narrow my request to fields that already sit together in one record?
A: The opinion's reasoning turns on the fact that no single existing record contained all the requested fields. A request for data that does already exist together in one export would not require the agency to create a new record, so the no-create rationale would not apply to it.

Background and statutory framework

No-create rule. The opinion states that FOIA requires public bodies to provide reasonable access to existing public records but "does not require the creation of a new document to respond to a request." It cites a line of prior opinions applying that rule: 20-IB12, 17-IB61, 17-IB32, 17-IB02, and 06-IB17.

Sworn affidavit requirement. Citing Judicial Watch v. University of Delaware (2021), the opinion notes that in certain circumstances a sworn affidavit may be required to meet the public body's burden of proof. The Parking Services Supervisor's affidavit supplied that here.

No interpretation requirement. The opinion holds that, although a public body may provide additional explanation, FOIA does not require it to explain or interpret produced data for a requesting party.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• 29 Del. C. § 10003(a) (right of access)
• 29 Del. C. § 10005(c) (burden of proof)

Cases:

• Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021)

Prior AG opinions (no-create rule):

• Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 20-IB12 (Mar. 17, 2020); 17-IB61 (Dec. 5, 2017); 17-IB32 (July 25, 2017); 17-IB02 (Feb. 8, 2017); 06-IB17 (Aug. 21, 2006)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2022/08/12/22-ib26-08-12-2022-foia-opinion-letter-to-erin-markham-re-foia-complaint-concerning-the-city-of-wilmington/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/08/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-22-IB26.pdf

Original opinion text

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL

NEW CASTLE COUNTY
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400
FAX: (302) 577-6630
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500
FAX: (302) 577-2496
FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
FAX: (302) 577-6499

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 22-IB26
August 12, 2022

VIA EMAIL
Erin Markham
[email protected]

RE:

FOIA Petition Regarding the City of Wilmington

Dear Ms. Markham:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the City of Wilmington violated
Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007 ("FOIA") in regard to 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 more fully herein, we conclude that the City did not violate FOIA as alleged.

BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2022, you sent a request to the City for "an [E]xcel data report of all parking
tickets issued within the limits of the City of Wilmington during the period [of] 1/1/2021 –
5/31/2022," including, if applicable, the citation number, date and time of issuance, location, code
and violation description, comments, issuing officer, fine amount due, date of appeal, ruling on
appeal and date of ruling, date of request for court hearing, date court hearing was processed/filed
with the court, date of scheduled court hearing, and date and fine amount paid. 1 The City produced
an Excel document in response to your request. This Petition followed, alleging that the
spreadsheet is missing certain data you seek, including the date of appeal, ruling on appeal and
date of ruling, date of request for court hearing, date court hearing was processed or filed with the

1

Petition.
1

court, and date of the scheduled court hearing. Additionally, you argue that you cannot be
reasonably expected to interpret this spreadsheet without explanation.
The City's counsel provided a response on July 28, 2022 ("Response"). The City included
the affidavit of the City Parking Services Supervisor, who attested that the City has no single record
with all the data you requested. In order to provide an Excel spreadsheet with this information,
the City staff "would need to review the data extract and manually update the spreadsheet with the
additional information [you] requested." 2 The City maintains that its FOIA obligations were met
upon production of the spreadsheet.

DISCUSSION
Under FOIA, a public body carries the burden of proof to justify denying a request for
records. 3 In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden. 4 FOIA
requires public bodies to provide reasonable access to existing public records. 5 Although a public
body may provide additional explanation, there is no requirement in FOIA that a public body
explain or interpret provided data to a requesting party.
Here, you seek a spreadsheet containing certain data points. The City provided a
spreadsheet that included most, but not all, of the data you requested. The City has presented
sworn testimony that there is no single record that is fully responsive to your request, and in order
to create such a document, the City would have to extract the relevant information and manually
update the spreadsheet. FOIA does not require the creation of a new document to respond to a
request, and therefore, we find that no violation of FOIA occurred. 6

2

Response, Ex. A.

3

29 Del. C. § 10005(c).

4

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021).

5

29 Del. C. § 10003(a).

6

See, e.g., Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 20-IB12, 2020 WL 1894025, at 3 (Mar. 17, 2020); Del. Op.
Att'y Gen. 17-IB61, 2017 WL 6569377, at 2 (Dec. 5, 2017); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB32, 2017
WL 3426272, at 3 (July 25, 2017); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB02, 2017 WL 955566, at 6 (Feb.
8, 2017); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 06-IB17, 2006 WL 2630107, at *4 (Aug. 21, 2006).
2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the City did not violate FOIA as alleged.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole

Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

Approved:
/s/ Aaron R. Goldstein

Aaron R. Goldstein
State Solicitor

cc:

John D. Hawley, Assistant City Solicitor

3