If a Delaware town misses the FOIA deadline but eventually responds, can a citizen still win on incomplete responses, an unredacted FOIA log, or untrained staff?

Plain-English summary

Sherry Pearson filed seven FOIA requests with the Town of Greenwood and then a § 10005 petition with four claims: that several responses were late; that some responses were inaccurate or incomplete; that the Town released its FOIA log to a separate requester without redacting requesters' contact information; and that the FOIA coordinator was not properly trained.

The Town responded through counsel with an affidavit from its Acting Town Manager. It said the responses came on the sixteenth business day because the FOIA coordinator had not realized requests were going to an email address no longer in active use, and once she found the error she promptly reviewed and responded. The Town said the inaccuracy allegation was not specific enough to answer, that FOIA does not require redacting contact information from a FOIA log, and that no training is required to be a coordinator (though the Acting Town Manager had completed FOIA training on October 1, 2025).

The AG decided the four claims as follows:

1. Timeliness: moot. The petition acknowledged the responses had been received, so the timeliness claims were moot. No violation.
2. Incompleteness: violation as to two requests. The general inaccuracy claim was nonspecific, but the petition flagged two requests as "incomplete": all legal bills from May 1 to September 19, 2025, and the account registers for each Town bank account from June 1 to September 19, 2025. Because the Town did not address those specific claims, it failed to meet its burden, and the AG found a violation. It recommended the Town review those responses and supplement them as appropriate.
3. FOIA log / contact information: no standing. The log was produced in response to a different person's request. A citizen who is not the requesting party lacks standing to object to the Town's response to someone else's request. Any claim that releasing her contact information violated some other law is outside the scope of the FOIA petition process.
4. Coordinator training: not a FOIA violation. Section 10007 requires the Attorney General to hold an annual training session for FOIA coordinators, but FOIA does not require coordinators to attend or hold any credential.

What this means for you

If a town missed the deadline but eventually responded

The opinion treats timeliness claims as moot once the responses have been received. So a late response, by itself, did not produce a violation finding here.

If you think a response is incomplete

Be specific. The opinion treated the general inaccuracy allegation as too nonspecific to act on, but found a violation for the two requests the petition specifically flagged as incomplete, because the Town did not address those claims and so did not meet its burden. The remedy the AG recommended was for the Town to review and, where appropriate, supplement those two responses.

If your contact information shows up in a FOIA log given to someone else

The opinion holds that a citizen who is not the requesting party lacks standing to challenge the Town's response to a separate person's request through the § 10005 process. The AG also noted any claim under some other law would fall outside its FOIA authority.

If you are a FOIA coordinator

The opinion confirms FOIA does not require coordinators to be trained; § 10007 only directs the Attorney General to hold an annual training session. The Town's good-faith email mix-up did not avoid a violation on the two incomplete responses, because the public body carries the burden of demonstrating compliance.

Common questions

Why was the late-response claim moot?

Because the petition acknowledged the responses had been received. The opinion treats timeliness claims as moot once the responses are provided.

What made two of the requests a violation when the rest were not?

The general inaccuracy allegation was nonspecific. But the petition specifically flagged two requests as "incomplete" (legal bills and bank account registers), and the Town did not address those claims in its response. Because the public body bears the burden of demonstrating compliance, the AG found a violation as to those two and recommended the Town supplement them.

Can I challenge what a different person received in their FOIA request?

No. The opinion holds that a citizen who is not the requesting party lacks standing to object to the Town's response to someone else's request under the § 10005 petition process.

Is FOIA coordinator training required in Delaware?

No. The opinion states that § 10007 requires the Attorney General to hold an annual training session and encourages coordinators to attend, but does not mandate attendance or any other training as a prerequisite.

Background and statutory framework

Delaware's FOIA, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008, gives citizens reasonable access to public records and meetings. The public body bears the burden of justifying a denial and of otherwise demonstrating compliance, and in some circumstances a sworn affidavit may be required.

The statute sets a fifteen-business-day response period; the opinion treats a claim that responses were late as moot once the responses have been received.

29 Del. C. § 10005 provides the petition process. The opinion reads it to give standing to the citizen who actually made the request, not to a third party objecting to another person's response.

29 Del. C. § 10007 directs the Attorney General to hold an annual FOIA training session for coordinators. The opinion notes the statute does not require coordinators to attend.

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