When a Delaware town misses the FOIA deadline but eventually responds, can a citizen still get a violation finding for incomplete responses, redaction failures, and untrained staff?
Plain-English summary
Sherry Pearson filed seven FOIA requests with the Town of Greenwood and then a § 10005 petition raising four allegations: (1) several responses were late, (2) some responses were incomplete or inaccurate, (3) the Town's FOIA log was provided to a separate requester without redacting requesters' personal contact information, and (4) the FOIA coordinator was not properly trained.
The Town responded with an affidavit from the Acting Town Manager. Late responses happened because the FOIA coordinator did not realize the requests were being submitted to an inactive email address. Once she discovered the error, she reviewed and responded promptly. The Town disputed that the responses were inaccurate, noted no FOIA requirement to redact contact info from FOIA logs, and pointed out that no formal training is required by statute though the Acting Town Manager had completed FOIA training in October 2025.
The AG ruled four ways:
-
Timeliness: moot. Pearson acknowledged she received responses, just late. Under settled Delaware case law (Flowers v. Office of the Governor and others), once the records are produced, the timeliness violation becomes moot. No finding.
-
Incompleteness: partial violation. Pearson's petition specifically noted two requests as "incomplete": legal bills from May 1 to September 19, 2025, and bank account registers from June 1 to September 19, 2025. The Town did not address those specific incompleteness claims in its response, so the AG found a violation as to those two requests and recommended the Town review and supplement.
-
FOIA log redaction: no standing. The log was produced in response to a different requester's FOIA request. Pearson, as a third party, has no standing to challenge the Town's response to someone else's request (citing 19-IB65). To the extent another law (privacy, data protection) might have been violated by including her contact info in a log given to someone else, that is outside FOIA's scope.
-
FOIA coordinator training: not a FOIA violation. Section 10007 directs the AG to hold annual training sessions; it does not require coordinators to attend or to have any other credentials. Lack of training is not a FOIA violation.
What this means for you
If you filed multiple FOIA requests and the town missed deadlines
Delaware FOIA's 15-business-day deadline (§ 10003(h)) is mandatory, but if the town eventually produces the records, the timeliness violation is generally moot. The AG will not issue a violation finding just because the response was late. To get a violation finding for delay, you typically need either ongoing non-response (see 25-IB62) or specific request denials that were never cured.
If a response is incomplete, say so specifically
The AG will treat unsupported general allegations of incompleteness as too vague to act on. To get a violation finding, identify the specific request and what was missing. Pearson's petition flagged two specific requests with notations on them as "incomplete," and that specificity is what produced the violation finding for those two. The other allegations of inaccuracy were too general to be addressed.
If you suspect a response is incomplete: (1) identify which records you expected based on the public body's normal records, (2) cite the specific gap (for example, "the report covers May to August but the request was for May to September"), and (3) include this in your petition with documentary support if possible.
If your contact info appears in a FOIA log released to someone else
You do not have a § 10005 remedy. Pearson learned that another requester had asked for and received the Town's FOIA log, which included Pearson's name and contact info. The AG made clear that a citizen who is not the requester has no standing under the FOIA petition process. Other potential remedies might include data privacy claims under federal or state law, but none of those run through 29 Del. C. § 10005.
The AG also confirmed that there is no FOIA requirement to redact contact information from FOIA logs. The General Assembly designed the log to include that information.
If you are a Delaware FOIA coordinator
Section 10007 directs the AG to hold an annual training session. It does not require attendance, and there is no other formal credential. That said, the practical lesson from this opinion is that good faith errors (like missing requests sent to a stale email address) do not insulate the Town from a violation finding when the underlying request is incomplete. Set up:
- A monitored, current intake email for FOIA requests (publicized on the Town website).
- A tickler system that calculates the 15-business-day deadline on receipt.
- A review step where someone with knowledge of the underlying records confirms the response is complete before sending.
- Documentation of the search method and scope, so you can defend the response if challenged.
If you are a municipal attorney advising on FOIA
The Town here did several things right: prompt cure once the inactive-email problem was discovered, an affidavit from the Acting Town Manager attesting to the response. That kept the timeliness claim from sticking. What it did not do well: address the specific completeness allegations. When responding to a § 10005 petition, address each specific allegation in the petition, not just the general thrust. Specificity in the petition demands specificity in the response.
If you serve as the FOIA point of contact for a Delaware town
Make sure the FOIA email goes to a current, actively monitored address. Do not let a former employee's email be the only intake. Publish the current FOIA address on the Town website with a confirmation form, and acknowledge requests promptly. The "we sent it to an old email" defense did not save the Town from the substantive completeness violation.
Background and statutory framework
29 Del. C. § 10003(a) gives Delaware citizens the right to inspect and copy public records. Section 10003(h) sets the 15-business-day response deadline.
Section 10005(c) puts the burden of proof on the public body. Judicial Watch v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021), holds that in some circumstances a sworn affidavit is required. Affidavit support helped the Town here on the timeliness defense.
Mootness on timeliness has been the rule since cases like Chem. Indus. Council, 1994 WL 274295 (Del. Ch. 1994), and Flowers v. Office of the Governor, 167 A.3d 530 (Del. Super. 2017). Once the records are provided, the timeliness violation is generally not a basis for a violation finding because the remedy (production) has already occurred.
Section 10005(e) provides the citizen right to petition. Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 19-IB65 (2019) interprets that right as inherently limited to the citizen who was denied access. A third party cannot use someone else's request as the basis for a § 10005 petition.
Section 10007 directs the AG to hold an annual FOIA training session. The statute does not impose a training mandate on coordinators or condition appointment on training credentials.
Common questions
Why is a late response not a FOIA violation?
If the records were eventually produced, the harm has been remedied and the AG does not issue a violation finding. The remedy for a missed deadline is production, and once production happens, the violation is moot. This rule comes from Delaware case law (Chem. Indus. Council, Flowers, and others).
If the records have not yet been produced, however, the case is different. Ongoing non-response or post-deadline denial without justification can support a violation finding.
What makes a response "incomplete" under FOIA?
A response is incomplete when the public body's production omits responsive records that exist and are not exempt. The petitioner has to be specific: which request, what is missing, and how do you know. Vague claims of incompleteness will not stick. Pearson's two flagged requests (legal bills and bank account registers) had specific notations on them, which gave the AG enough to find a violation.
Can I challenge what someone else got in their FOIA request?
Generally not under FOIA. Section 10005 gives standing to "any citizen denied access," and that has been read as the citizen who actually filed the request. Third-party concerns about another person's response (including release of personal info) are not cognizable under the FOIA petition process.
What is a FOIA log?
A FOIA log is the public body's record of FOIA requests received: typically the date, requester name, contact info, subject of the request, and disposition. The log itself can be a public record under FOIA, requestable by another citizen. There is no statutory requirement to redact requester contact information from the log.
Is FOIA coordinator training mandatory in Delaware?
No. Section 10007 directs the AG to hold an annual training session, but it does not mandate that coordinators attend. The AG opinion confirms that lack of training is not a FOIA violation. As a practical matter, the AG opinions and the costs of compliance failures suggest training is wise even though not required.
What is the remedy for an incomplete response?
The AG recommends that the Town review the original responses and supplement them with any additional records (or parts of records) that should have been produced. The AG cannot order production directly; if the Town does not comply, the requester's next step is Chancery Court under § 10005(d).
Can I use FOIA to compel training of municipal employees?
No. FOIA is a records-and-meetings law, not an employee-training law. If you have policy concerns about FOIA practices in your town, raise them with the Town Council, the General Assembly, or through public advocacy. The § 10005 petition process is for specific records or meetings violations, not for systemic reform.
What if my town has serial FOIA problems across many requesters?
The § 10005 process is per-request and per-petitioner. For systemic enforcement, options include: (1) Chancery Court action with broader equitable relief; (2) referral to the AG for general oversight; (3) legislative complaints; (4) town council electoral pressure. None of those are quick.
Citations
- Statutes: 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (FOIA); § 10003(a) (right of access); § 10005 (petition process); § 10005(c) (burden of proof); § 10005(e) (citizen right to petition); § 10007 (annual training).
- Cases: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021); Flowers v. Office of the Governor, 167 A.3d 530 (Del. Super. 2017); Chem. Indus. Council of Del., Inc. v. State Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., 1994 WL 274295 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1994).
- Prior AG opinions: 19-IB65 (Oct. 28, 2019); 18-IB30 (Jun. 7, 2018); 17-IB35 (July 31, 2017).
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/12/01/25-ib57-12-01-2025-foia-opinion-letter-to-sherry-pearson-re-town-of-greenwood/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2025/12/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-25-IB57.pdf
Original opinion text
KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 25-IB57
December 1, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Sherry Pearson
[email protected]
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Town of Greenwood
Dear Ms. Pearson:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Town of Greenwood violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat these submissions as a petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussed more fully herein, we determine that the Town violated FOIA by failing to meet its burden regarding the completeness of its responses to two requests. The remainder of the claims do not constitute violations of FOIA.
BACKGROUND
You state that you filed seven FOIA requests with the Town of Greenwood. The Petition makes four separate FOIA claims, alleging the Town violated FOIA by: (1) failing to timely respond to several FOIA requests; (2) providing inaccurate responses and noting some were incomplete; (3) failing to redact the personal information of the requesting parties from the Town's FOIA log when it produced the log to a separate requesting party; and (4) failing to properly train its FOIA coordinator.
The Town, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition and included the affidavit of its acting Town Manager who attested to having firsthand knowledge of the representations in the Response and to her belief that the Response was true and correct. The Town acknowledges that the responses to the requests were made after the statutory deadline, on the sixteenth business day, because the FOIA coordinator did not realize that requests were submitted to an email address no longer in active use. Upon discovery of the error, the Town states that the FOIA coordinator promptly reviewed and responded to the requests. The Town states that the allegation about the inaccuracy of the FOIA responses is not sufficiently specific to allow the Town to respond. Regarding the production of the FOIA log, the Town asserts there is no requirement in FOIA for redacting the contact information of the requesting parties. The Town argues that because the General Assembly believed contact information was important for a public body to maintain, that information is produced as a part of the log. Regarding the FOIA coordinator's training, the Town points out that no training requirement exists in FOIA as a prerequisite to becoming a FOIA coordinator, and nonetheless, the acting Town Manager has undergone FOIA training, most recently on October 1, 2025.
DISCUSSION
Delaware's FOIA law "was enacted to ensure governmental accountability by providing Delaware's citizens access to open meetings and meeting records of governmental or public bodies, as well as access to the public records of those entities." FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records. The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records and to otherwise demonstrate compliance with FOIA. In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden.
The Petition first alleges that the responses to several requests were received beyond the fifteen business days required by the statute. The claims regarding timeliness are moot, as the Petition acknowledges responses have been received.
The Petition's second allegation, that the responses were inaccurate, is nonspecific, but notations were made on the requests enclosed with the Petition, including two requests noted as incomplete. The first request sought all legal bills submitted to the Town from May 1, 2025 to September 19, 2025. The Petition included a copy of the provided report of legal billing from the Town, but you alleged that the "report is incomplete." For the second request seeking copies of account registers for each bank account owned by the Town from June 1, 2025 to September 19, 2025, this request also was noted as "incomplete." As the Town did not address those claims, we find a violation in this regard and recommend that the Town review its responses to these requests and, to the extent appropriate under FOIA, supplement those responses with additional records or information, if any.
The third claim in the Petition objecting to your contact information appearing in a FOIA log provided to another individual in response to a separate request is not appropriate for consideration in this Opinion. A citizen who is not the requesting party lacks standing to object to the Town's response to a separate citizen's FOIA request. To the extent you believe the Town violated another law in producing your contact information, such a matter would fall outside the scope of this Office's authority through the petition process, which is limited to determining violations of the FOIA statute.
The fourth allegation, which argues that the FOIA coordinator lacked the appropriate training for the position, is also not a FOIA violation. No such training requirements for FOIA coordinators are present in the statute; rather, Section 10007 requires the Attorney General to hold an annual training session for FOIA coordinators. FOIA coordinators are encouraged to attend, but a mandate to attend this training, or any other training, is not part of the statute.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the Town violated FOIA by failing to meet its burden regarding the completeness of its responses to two requests. The remainder of the claims do not constitute violations of FOIA.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole
Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General
Approved:
/s/ Patricia A. Davis
Patricia A. Davis
State Solicitor
cc: James P. Sharp, Town Solicitor