How specific does a Delaware public records request have to be for the city to have to respond to it?

Official title

95-IB24 Louis A. Irion, Jr. – June 7, 1995 Freedom of Information Act Complaint

Plain-English summary

A New Castle resident asked the city for "information on status of former public walkways taken for private use" and complained to the AG when the city hadn't responded. The AG found the request itself too vague; it didn't say which walkways or where in the city they were located, so the city had no way to know what records to pull. Because Delaware had no case law addressing how specific a FOIA request must be, the AG looked to federal FOIA cases holding that broad, sweeping requests without enough detail aren't proper requests at all, since it's the requester's job to frame the request specifically enough that the agency can locate the records. Separately, the city had by then produced a legal opinion covering four named alleys in the area the resident was asking about, so the AG found the complaint moot on that ground as well and closed the matter without finding a violation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a Delaware public body ignore a records request that didn't name specific documents?
A: This opinion found that a request has to describe the records sought with enough specificity for the public body to locate them; a vague request like "information on former walkways" without naming which ones did not meet that bar.

Q: Did Delaware have its own case law on how specific a FOIA request must be, as of this 1995 opinion?
A: No. The AG said there was no Delaware case law on point and relied instead on federal FOIA decisions addressing the same specificity requirement.

Q: What happened to the complaint once the city eventually produced a relevant document?
A: According to this opinion, the AG found the matter moot once the city filed a legal opinion covering the alleys at issue, even though it was created about 40 days after the original request.

Background and statutory framework

The citizen-complaint procedure at 29 Del. C. § 10005(e) lets a requester ask the Attorney General to determine whether a public body violated FOIA. Because Delaware had no reported decision on request specificity, the AG applied federal FOIA case law addressing the analogous federal statute, including Marks v. Department of Justice, Mason v. Callaway, and Hunt v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, all holding that a requester must frame a request with enough specificity that the agency can locate the records sought. Applying that standard, the AG found the walkways request too vague, and found the complaint independently moot once the city supplied a responsive document.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• 29 Del. C. § 10005(e), authorizes a citizen complaint to the Attorney General over an alleged FOIA violation

Cases:

• Marks v. Department of Justice, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1977), holding broad, sweeping federal FOIA requests lacking specificity are not permissible
• Mason v. Callaway, 554 F.2d 129 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 877, reh. denied, 434 U.S. 935 (1977), applying the same specificity requirement under the federal FOIA
• Hunt v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 484 F.Supp. 47, 51 (D.D.C. 1979), holding it is the requester's duty to frame a request with sufficient specificity

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/1995/06/07/95-ib24-louis-a-irion-jr-june-7-1995-freedom-of-information-act-complaint/
• Original PDF: not linked from landing page

Original opinion text

Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 95-IB24 (Del.A.G.), 1995 WL 794485

( observing that request for access to public records must describe documents sought with sufficient specificity so as to permit public body to locate the requested records )

120 Delaware Street

New Castle, DE 19720

Gerald P. Kavanaugh, Jr.

City Solicitor

Herlihy, Harker & Kavanaugh

1300 N. Market Street

Suite 400

Wilmington, DE 19899-1597

Re: Louis A. Irion, Jr. – June 7, 1995 Freedom of Information Act Complaint

Dear Gentleman:

This is the decision on the above-referenced Freedom of Information Act (the "Act") complaint.

The operative facts are that on June 7, 1995, Louis A. Irion, Jr. (the "Complainant") filed a complaint pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005(e) with this office. The Complainant sought the documents from the City of New Castle (the "City") by written request on May 2, 1995 information on status of former public walkways taken for private use. (See, Exhibit "A").

The Complainant stated that the City had failed to respond to his request for information. The City was notified of the Complaint by letter dated June 22, 1995 and responded on July 18, 1995.1

The request was made on a "Mayor and Council of the City of New Castle request for Public Records under the Freedom of Information Act" form. Under "Specific Documents Requested," the Complainant printed "Information on status of former public walkways taken for private use." (Exhibit "A"). The request was not specific as to what walkways, or where the walkways were located in the corporate limits. While there is no Delaware case law on point, the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 550 is similar to the Delaware FOIA, and has been interpreted in several reported cases. These cases indicate that broad, sweeping requests lacking specificity are not permissible under the federal FOIA. See Marks v. Department of Justice, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1977); Mason v. Callaway, 554 F.2d 129 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 877, reh. denied, 434 U.S. 935 (1977). "It is the duty of the requester to frame the request with sufficient specificity so that it is not excessively broad." Hunt v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 484 F.Supp. 47, 51 (D.D.C. 1979). Since the description of the documents sought was not sufficient to allow the City to locate such records, request lacks specificity.

The City has provided a copy of a legal opinion from its City Solicitor dated June 13, 1995 concerning four alleys in the area of the Strand. This document is identified as "Re: Complaints of Louis A. Irion regarding alleys on the Strand known as Alexander's Alley, Appeal by Alley, and Alexander's Alley" (sic) (Exhibit "B"). We enclose a copy of the same for Mr. Irion. Although this document was not created until approximately 40 days after Mr. Irion's request, it contains, we believe, the relevant information sought in Complainants' public records request.

For the foregoing reasons, no violation of the Act is found. In addition, since the respondents have filed records with the office in response to the records request, we also find the matter is moot. The Complainant's appeal rights are contained in 29 Del. C. § 10005(e).

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

John K. Welch

Deputy Attorney General

John F. Brady

Deputy Attorney General

Enclosures

JKW.JFB/jb

APPROVED

Michael J. Rich

State Solicitor