Can I get my own job interview notes from a Delaware city under FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Tymir Thompkins, a City of Wilmington employee, asked for “the paperwork of each panelist” from his interview for another City position. The City denied the December 9, 2025 request under FOIA's personnel-file exemption. Thompkins argued the records were hiring materials, that he sought only his own information, and that the City should release redacted versions if needed.

The AG agreed with Thompkins on the City's stated exemption. The City acknowledged that panel notes were kept in a separate recruitment file rather than his personnel file. The AG therefore found that the personnel-file exemption, 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1), did not apply.

The denial nevertheless stood. Section 10002(o)(6) excludes records protected from disclosure under common law. Citing earlier opinions on hiring records, the AG found that the common-law right of privacy protected these panel records: the minimal public interest did not outweigh the significant privacy interest. That exemption still applied when the applicant himself requested the records. The City first raised this ground in its response to the petition, and the AG cautioned it to consider the reasons stated in future denials.

What this means for you

If you request your own interview records

This opinion did not give Thompkins access through FOIA simply because the interview concerned him. It held that the panel records were protected by common-law privacy under § 10002(o)(6). The City's response said any entitlement to review his personnel file lay outside this FOIA petition; the opinion did not decide whether he had such an entitlement.

If you work in public-sector HR or handle records requests

Where interview panel notes are kept in a recruitment file rather than an employee's personnel file, this opinion says the personnel-file exemption does not apply. The AG upheld withholding these records under the separate common-law privacy exemption. It cautioned the City after that reason first appeared in its petition response.

If you challenge a hiring-records denial

Check what records the original request sought and where they are kept. The AG limited this opinion to Thompkins's December 9 request for the panelists' paperwork; his petition described additional records that were not in that original request.

Background and statutory framework

Section 10002(o)(1) concerns personnel files whose disclosure would invade personal privacy. The City initially relied on it but acknowledged that these interview notes were not in Thompkins's personnel file. The AG rejected that ground.

Section 10002(o)(6) excludes records exempt under common law. The AG cited earlier determinations finding a substantial privacy interest in hiring materials and little public interest in those particular records. 29 Del. C. § 10005(c) places the burden of justifying denial on the public body; the opinion noted that a sworn affidavit can sometimes be needed.

Common questions

Did the AG accept the City's personnel-file argument?

No. It agreed that § 10002(o)(1) did not apply because the panel notes were in a separate recruitment file, not Thompkins's personnel file.

Why could the City still withhold the notes?

The AG found them protected under § 10002(o)(6) and the common-law right of privacy. It cited prior opinions on similar hiring records and found the privacy interest outweighed the minimal public interest.

Does requesting records about yourself change the FOIA result?

It did not here. The AG said Thompkins's identity as the subject did not change the application of the common-law privacy exemption.

Did the City give the right reason in its initial denial?

No. It cited the personnel-file exemption first, then raised common-law privacy in its petition response. The AG upheld the withholding but cautioned the City to consider the reasons it gives in future denials.

Citations

• Statutes: 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) (personnel files); § 10002(o)(6) (common-law exemptions); § 10003(a) (access); § 10005(c) (burden of proof).
• Case: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021).

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2026/01/09/26-ib02-01-09-2026-foia-opinion-letter-to-tymir-thompkins-re-city-of-wilmington/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2026/01/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-26-IB02.pdf

Original opinion text

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500
DIVISION CIVIL RIGHTS & PUBLIC TRUST (302) 577-5400
KATHLEEN JENNINGS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION (302) 577-8400 ATTORNEY GENERAL 820 NORTH FRENCH STREET FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
FAX (302) 577-2610

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Attorney General Opinion No. 26-IB02

January 9, 2026

VIA EMAIL

Tymir Thompkins
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the City of Wilmington

Dear Tymir Thompkins:

We write in response to your correspondence, alleging that City of Wilmington 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 of 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 by denying access to the requested records.

BACKGROUND

On December 9, 2025, you submitted a FOIA request to the City seeking records of your interview for a certain City position. You stated that there were five interview panelists, and you would like to receive “the paperwork of each panelist.” 1 The City denied access to these records, citing 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) for personnel files, the disclosure of which would constitute a violation of personal privacy under FOIA or another state or federal law. This Petition followed.

1
Petition.

1
 The Petition alleges that this personnel file exemption was misapplied to your request. 2 You argue that you are only requesting your own records, and releasing records to you does not violate any third party’s privacy. You also contend that FOIA requires that its exemptions be applied narrowly, and interview evaluation sheets and written notes are not employee personnel files; rather, these materials are “hiring decision materials, which are presumptively public.” 3 You assert that rather than withholding these records, the City should have provided a redacted production without the exempt information, such as panelists’ names, other applicants’ information, and reusable exam questions.

The City, through its legal counsel, replied to this Petition (“Response”). The City argues its assertion of the personnel file exemption was appropriate here, as you are presently employed by the City, and your application to this position constituted seeking a promotion, which would meet the definition of personnel files adopted in FOIA precedent. However, the City acknowledges that the interview panelists’ notes would not become part of your personnel file, but instead, are kept within a separate recruitment file, which the City argues is a distinction without a difference. The City states that in addition to the personnel file exemption, FOIA also exempts records under the common law right of privacy. The City contends that “the discussions of qualifications and competencies of applicants are subject to a significant privacy interest,” noting that these types of records are exempt for the same reasons that a public body is authorized to meet privately to discuss an individual’s qualifications for public employment under the open meeting exceptions. 4 The City asserts that the fact you seek only records pertaining to you has no bearing on the disclosure of records, because the identity of the requesting party has no bearing on a request; under FOIA, either a record is public, or it is not. The City further clarifies that this does not mean you have no recourse to review your own personnel file; rather, any entitlement to your personnel file is outside the scope of FOIA and this petition process.

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.” 5 FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records. 6 The

2
The Petition articulates a list of specific hiring records sought that were not stated in your December 9, 2025 request. The request evaluated by this Opinion is the request submitted on December 9, 2025. 3 Petition.
4
Response.
5
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).
6
29 Del. C. § 10003(a).

2 public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records. 7 In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden. 8

The Petition alleges that the interview panelists’ scoring sheets and notes are not personnel files exempted from disclosure under Section 10002(o)(1). As the City acknowledged these records are not part of your personnel file, we agree that the personnel file exemption does not apply to these circumstances.

Instead, we find that these records are not public pursuant to Section 10002(o)(6), which excludes records that are exempt from disclosure under common law. This Office has found that these types of hiring records are protected by the common law right of privacy and any minimal public interest in such records does not outweigh the significant privacy interest. 9 Thus, consistent with these previous determinations, we find that the requested records are exempt. 10 The fact that the requested records pertain to you does not alter the application of this exemption. 11

7
29 Del. C. § 10005(c).
8
Judicial Watch, Inc.,267 A.3d at 1008-1012.
9
See, e.g., Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 24-IB30, 2024 WL 3916854, at 2 (Aug. 9, 2024) (determining a public body appropriately denied a request for correspondence relating to the hirings of eight positions to which the petitioner applied); Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 05-IB20, 2005 WL 2334348, at 2-3 (July 7, 2005) (“Although FOIA does not have an express exemption for documents relating to the job applicant process, the statute authorizes a public body to meet in executive session to discuss ‘an individual citizen’s qualifications to hold a job.’ 29 Del. C. § 10004(b)(1). This exemption for executive session would have little if any practical meaning if the job application packets reviewed by the members of the public body, and their notes or scoring cards, were public records under FOIA.”). 10 Although we find that these records were withheld for an authorized reason, we note that the City asserted the rationale of Section 10002(o)(6)’s common law right of privacy for the first time in its Response to your Petition and respectfully caution the City to give due consideration to the reasons asserted in its denials in the future. See, e.g., Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 22-IB16, 2022 WL 1547876, at 3 (Apr. 29, 2022); Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 17-IB05, 2017 WL 1317847, n. 37 (Mar. 10, 2017) (“While, in this instance, we have determined that DNREC’s denial of your request was indeed authorized by FOIA, we nevertheless caution DNREC to give careful consideration to the reason(s) provided, pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10003(h)(2), for any FOIA denial.”). 11 Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 24-IB30, 2024 WL 3916854, n. 14 (Aug. 9, 2024); see also Del. Op.
Att’y Gen. 18-IB13, 2018 WL 1405829, at 1 (Mar. 6, 2018) (“Importantly, Delaware’s FOIA provides that “[a]ll public records shall be open to inspection and copying during regular business hours by the custodian of the records for the appropriate public body.” In other words, if a record meets FOIA’s definition of “public record,” then the public body must make the record available for inspection and copying to any Delaware citizen who requests access thereto. Similarly, if the record does not meet FOIA’s definition of “public record,” then Delaware’s FOIA does not 3
 CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the City did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Dorey L. Cole
_______
Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

Approved:

/s/ Patricia A. Davis
________
Patricia A. Davis
State Solicitor

cc: John D. Hawley, Assistant City Solicitor

mandate its disclosure and a public body cannot be found to have violated FOIA for failing to disclose the record in response to a FOIA request.”) (emphasis in original).

4