If I file 18 FOIA requests at once, does the Delaware agency have to send 18 separate responses?

Official title

24-IB03 01/24/2024 FOIA Opinion Letter to Crystal Long re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the City of Seaford

Plain-English summary

Crystal Long sent the City of Seaford eighteen separate FOIA requests. The City Solicitor responded with a single January 4, 2024 letter providing an aggregated cost estimate. Long argued FOIA required individual responses, and complained that the City had violated "all kinds of laws," using a parcel of real property as an example.

The AG sided with the City. FOIA does not require a public body to respond to each request in a separate communication; aggregation is permitted. § 10003(m)(2) explicitly authorizes aggregating staff time when "multiple FOIA requests are submitted by or on behalf of the requesting party in an effort to avoid incurring administrative charges." That same subsection forbids charging for the public body's legal review and requires the agency to minimize administrative costs, including limiting use of non-administrative staff. The AG declined to address Long's parcel-related complaints because they fall outside FOIA's scope under § 10005(e).

What this means for you

If you are a Delaware FOIA requester

The opinion holds that submitting one topic as eighteen separate requests does not entitle you to eighteen separate responses, and does not stop the public body from aggregating staff time across the requests when computing fees. Section 10003(m)(2) authorizes that aggregation when multiple requests are submitted by or on behalf of the same requester.

If you are a Delaware FOIA coordinator

The opinion holds that FOIA does not require a separate communication for each request, so a single letter responding to multiple requests does not violate FOIA, and the body may aggregate fees across them. The opinion also notes that administrative fees may not include legal-review time and that the body must make every effort to minimize administrative fees, including limiting the use of nonadministrative staff.

If your complaint is partly about something other than FOIA

The opinion holds that the AG's authority under Section 10005(e) is limited to FOIA allegations. The AG did not address Long's non-FOIA claims, using as an example her question about the title and status of a parcel of real property, which fell outside the scope of the determination.

Common questions

What's the difference between aggregating responses and aggregating fees?

Aggregating responses means one letter answering multiple requests. Aggregating fees means the public body counts the staff time across requests as one block for billing. Both are permitted. § 10003(m)(2) explicitly addresses fee aggregation; the response aggregation flows from the absence of any FOIA rule requiring separate communications.

Is "in an effort to avoid incurring administrative charges" a finding the agency has to make?

In this opinion the AG did not require the City to make a finding that Long was trying to avoid fees; it simply concluded that a single response to the eighteen requests, with aggregated fees, did not violate FOIA. The opinion quotes the statute's "in an effort to avoid incurring administrative charges" language without resting its holding on a finding of intent.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. § 10003 governs response procedures. Subsection (m) governs administrative fees. Subsection (m)(2) provides:

When multiple FOIA requests are submitted by or on behalf of the requesting party in an effort to avoid incurring administrative charges, the public body may in its discretion aggregate staff time for all such requests when computing fees hereunder.

That subsection also bars charging for legal review (the public body's review of whether records or portions are exempt) and requires the agency to minimize administrative costs, including limiting use of non-administrative staff.

29 Del. C. § 10005(e) limits the AG's FOIA-petition authority to FOIA violations. Non-FOIA grievances (real estate disputes, zoning, ethics) must go through other channels.

Citations

• 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (Delaware FOIA)
• 29 Del. C. § 10003 (response procedures)
• 29 Del. C. § 10003(m) (administrative fees)
• 29 Del. C. § 10003(m)(2) (aggregation provision and legal review prohibition)
• 29 Del. C. § 10005 (petition procedure)
• 29 Del. C. § 10005(e) (scope of AG determinations)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2024/01/24/24-ib03-01-24-2024-foia-opinion-letter-to-crystal-long-re-foia-complaint-concerning-the-city-of-seaford/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2024/01/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-24-IB03.pdf

Original opinion text

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500
DIVISION CIVIL RIGHTS & PUBLIC TRUST (302) 577-5400
FAMILY DIVISION (302) 577-8400
FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
FAX (302) 577-2610

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 24-IB03
January 24, 2024

VIA EMAIL
Crystal Long
[email protected]

RE:

FOIA Petition Regarding the City of Seaford

Dear Ms. Long:

We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the City of Seaford violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this 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 determine that the City did not violate FOIA as alleged.

You submitted eighteen requests to the City of Seaford. The City Solicitor responded to your requests via letter dated January 4, 2024, providing an estimate of the costs to process the requests.[1] In your correspondence, you made two claims against the City. First, you argue that each request must be responded to individually. Second, you allege that the City violated "all kinds of laws," and as an example, you state you did not receive a response to your inquiry about the title and status of a certain parcel of real property.[2]

The FOIA statute does not require a public body to respond to each request through an individual and separate communication.[3] In addition, a public body is expressly permitted to aggregate the fees for purposes of processing multiple requests.[4] Thus, we find that the City's use of a single communication to respond to your eighteen requests does not constitute a violation of FOIA. In addition, this Office's statutory authority is limited to allegations related to the FOIA statute, and the claim related to other laws, including the issues regarding a certain parcel, is outside the scope of this determination.[5] For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the City has not violated FOIA by failing to provide an individual communication for each of the eighteen requests submitted.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole

Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

Approved:
/s/ Patricia A. Davis

Patricia A. Davis
State Solicitor

cc:

Daniel A. Griffith, City Solicitor

[1] Administrative fees may not include any cost associated with legal review determining whether any portion of the records are exempt, and the public body must make every effort to ensure administrative fees are minimized, including limiting the use of nonadministrative staff to the extent possible. 29 Del. C. § 10003(m).
[2] Petition.
[3] 29 Del. C. § 10003.
[4] 29 Del. C. § 10003(m)(2) ("When multiple FOIA requests are submitted by or on behalf of the requesting party in an effort to avoid incurring administrative charges, the public body may in its discretion aggregate staff time for all such requests when computing fees hereunder.").
[5] 29 Del. C. § 10005(e).