If a city loses my records request submitted through its online form, can it wait two months to answer?

Plain-English summary

S. Paul Jordan used the City of Mandan's "Report a Concern" website on October 9, 2022, to ask whether the City had a pet registration record for him, and to be told if no such record existed. The website auto-confirmed receipt and forwarded the request to the Code Enforcement Officer. He did not recall receiving it and suspected it had been unintentionally deleted.

Six weeks later Mr. Jordan emailed the AG's office. After the AG contacted Mandan, the City finally responded on December 30, 2022, telling Mr. Jordan that the requested records did not exist or were not records the City kept.

AG Drew Wrigley held that the two-month-plus delay was unreasonable, even though no one at the City intentionally ignored the request. North Dakota measures reasonable response in hours and days, not weeks. The opinion also points out that an earlier opinion (N.D.A.G. 2019-O-14) found two months unreasonable in a similar situation: an entity failing to respond that no records existed, even by accident.

Because the records did not exist and the City eventually said so, no further corrective action was needed. But the violation stands.

What this means for you

For city staff who receive requests through an online form: check the form's routing and make sure someone sees each request. Mandan's form sent an acknowledgment and forwarded the message to its Code Enforcement Officer, but the City did not provide a records response for more than two months. Afterward, it added another recipient to the form. The AG still found the delay unreasonable.

For records requesters: an automatic receipt did not settle Mr. Jordan's request. The City eventually explained that the requested record did not exist or was not a City record. The opinion found that waiting more than two months to say so violated the reasonable-time requirement. Mr. Jordan sought an AG opinion under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 after the delay.

For public entities whose search finds no record: tell the requester within a reasonable time. The AG said the response already given to Mr. Jordan meant Mandan needed no further remedial action, although the violation finding remained.

Common questions

Q: Does North Dakota set a fixed response deadline in this opinion? A: No. The AG said reasonableness depends on the facts and is measured in hours and days, not weeks. Mandan's delay of more than two months was unreasonable.

Q: Does an accidental deletion excuse a late response?
A: No. The Code Enforcement Officer suspected the forwarded request was unintentionally deleted. The AG said even an unintentional delay can be unreasonable.

Q: Does an automated acknowledgment count as the records response? A: The website acknowledged receipt immediately, but the AG still found a violation because the City did not answer the records request within a reasonable time.

Q: What if the requested record does not exist?
A: The City eventually said the record did not exist or was not one it kept. The AG still found the delay in giving that answer unreasonable.

Q: Did the AG require Mandan to take further remedial steps? A: No. By the time the opinion issued, Mandan had responded to Mr. Jordan. The opinion said no further action was required to remedy this violation.

Citations

• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18, open records access and reasonable response time
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(8), definition of open records violation
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1, citizen request for AG opinion
• N.D.A.G. 2003-O-09, reasonable response measured in hours and days
• N.D.A.G. 98-O-22, same standard
• N.D.A.G. 2004-O-20, multi-week delays unreasonable
• N.D.A.G. 2019-O-14: two months to confirm no records exist is unreasonable

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/an-unintentional-delay-of-over-two-months-to-respond-to-a-record-request-was-unreasonable/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-O-08.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

www.attorneygeneral.nd.gov
(701) 328-2210

Drew H. Wrigley
ATTORNEY GENERAL

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION
2025-O-08

DATE ISSUED: March 7, 2025
ISSUED TO: City of Mandan
CITIZEN’S REQUEST FOR OPINION

S. Paul Jordan requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking whether the City of Mandan (City) violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by failing to respond to a records request within a reasonable time.

FACTS PRESENTED

On October 9, 2022, S. Paul Jordan submitted a records request via the City’s “Report a Concern” website asking for a copy of a “pet registration record and [for the City to] provide notification if that record does not exist.”[1] An automated response was sent from the website acknowledging receipt of the concern, and the request was automatically forwarded to the Code Enforcement Officer per system settings.[2] The Code Enforcement Officer does not recall receiving a copy of the request and suspects it may have been unintentionally deleted.[3] On November 22, 2022, Mr. Jordan emailed this office seeking an opinion, asking whether the City unreasonably delayed its response to the records request.[4] Upon hearing from our office, the City responded to Mr. Jordan on December 30, 2022, informing him that the requested records did not exist or were not records of the City.[5]

ISSUE

Whether the City of Mandan responded to a records request within a reasonable time.

1 Email from S. Paul Jordan, to Off. of Att’y Gen. (Nov. 22, 2022, 1:39 PM); Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm’r, City of Mandan, to Annique Lockard, Assistant Att’y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Jan. 6, 2022). 2 Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm’r, City of Mandan, to Annique Lockard, Assistant Att’y Gen., Off. of Att’y Gen. (Jan. 6, 2022).

3 Id.
4 Email from S. Paul Jordan, to Off. of Att’y Gen. (Nov. 22, 2022, 1:39 PM). 5 Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm’r, City of Mandan, to Annique Lockard, Assistant Att’y Gen., Off. of Att’y Gen (Jan. 6, 2022).

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2025-O-08
March 7, 2025
Page 2

ANALYSIS

An open records violation occurs when “a person’s right to review or receive a copy of a record that is not exempt or confidential is denied or unreasonably delayed.”[6] When determining whether a delay in responding to a request for information is reasonable, this office will evaluate the matter in terms of hours and days, not weeks.[7] The determination of reasonableness depends on the given facts, and even unintentional delays may sometimes be deemed unreasonable. In an instance similar to this one, this office stated that “although unintentional, it took [the entity] two months to respond that no records existed, which is an unreasonable delay.”[8] The City has addressed the oversight by adding an additional recipient to the “Report a Concern” website and has provided a response to the records request from Mr. Jordan,[9] but the fact remains: a failure to respond to a records request for over two months, however unintentional, is an unreasonable delay.

CONCLUSION

The City of Mandan violated open records laws when it failed to respond to a records request within a reasonable time.

STEPS NEEDED TO REMEDY VIOLATION

A response stating the requested records did not exist has been provided to Mr. Jordan, therefore, no further action is required.

Drew H. Wrigley
Attorney General

MEO/AML/mjh

cc: S. Paul Jordan (via e-mail)

6 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(8).

7 N.D.A.G. 2003-O-09; citing N.D.A.G. 98-O-22. See also N.D.A.G 2004-O-20 (“When determining whether a delay in responding to a request for information is reasonable, this office looks at hours and days, not weeks.” Citing N.D.A.G. 2003-O-09).

8 N.D.A.G. 2019-O-14.

9 Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm’r, City of Mandan, to Annique Lockard, Asst. Att’y Gen., Att’y Gen.’s Office (Jan. 6, 2022).