Does a North Dakota school district violate the open records law by giving a requester redacted documents and explaining the redactions verbally instead of in writing?

Plain-English summary

Tom Simon requested school district records about a teacher, an alleged inappropriate relationship with a student, and two terminated paraprofessionals. Williston Basin School District No. 7 provided the records the next day with redactions. After Simon picked them up, he immediately called the superintendent, who said the district could not release information protected under FERPA or a pending Title IX investigation. The superintendent later repeated that explanation in writing and sent federal education guidance.

The Attorney General found the district substantially complied with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(7). That provision requires a denial to describe its legal authority and requires the explanation in writing if the requester asks. On the district's account of the call, Simon received the district's legal explanation verbally on the day he picked up the records. The opinion says he never asked for it in writing, so the later letter went beyond the statutory notification requirement.

The AG said giving the explanation at pickup would have been better practice. The opinion addresses how and when the district described its authority; it does not decide whether every FERPA or Title IX redaction was legally necessary. Footnote 2 separately says next-day production was reasonable. It treats Simon's alleged initial estimate of two weeks as immaterial because the actual production took one day.

What this means for you

If you request redacted school records

N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(7), as quoted in the opinion, requires the public entity to describe the legal authority for withholding information and to do so in writing if requested. Simon did not request a written explanation. The AG found that the superintendent's phone explanation met the notification requirement in this case.

If you handle school records requests

The AG said it would have been better to identify the legal authority when Simon picked up the records. Here, the superintendent gave the district's explanation immediately after pickup, then sent it in writing later. The opinion found substantial compliance on those facts and says the district was not obliged to write the explanation absent a request.

If you are concerned about a particular redaction

The district said its redactions related to FERPA and a pending Title IX investigation. The AG accepted the district's account of what its superintendent told Simon; the opinion did not decide the merits of individual redactions. This decision therefore does not establish that a particular withheld passage had to be redacted.

Common questions

Was a written explanation required here?

No. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(7) requires the legal authority to be put in writing if requested. The AG found no evidence Simon made that request. The district sent a written explanation anyway.

Did the AG approve the FERPA and Title IX redactions?

The opinion records the district's explanation but decides whether the district communicated its legal authority. It does not evaluate each redaction's legal basis.

When did Simon receive the records?

He requested them on May 31, 2023, and the district provided them on June 1. Footnote 2 calls that a reasonable response time. It says Simon alleged an initial estimate of two weeks or more, but the estimate did not determine whether the actual response was timely.

Why did the AG rely on the district's account of the phone call?

The opinion cites N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(1), which requires the AG to base an open records opinion on facts provided by the public entity. Footnote 7 records a different account from Simon, then states that the opinion must use the district's account.

Would giving the explanation at pickup have changed the result?

The AG said it would have been better practice. It found no statutory timing rule for providing the legal authority in these circumstances and concluded the immediate phone explanation was sufficient.

Background and statutory framework

N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(1) generally makes public entity records open except as specifically provided by law. Subsection (7) says a denial must describe its legal authority and must be in writing if requested. The AG applied that communication requirement to the district's redactions. It relied on the superintendent's reported phone explanation, not on a finding that the redactions themselves were proper.

The opinion names FERPA and Title IX as the authority the district cited. Footnotes identify FERPA as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and cite 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1689 for Title IX. The district also provided guidance from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights after the call.

Citations from the opinion

• N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-18(1), (7), and (8); 44-04-21.1(1)
• 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1689 (Title IX)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/the-williston-basin-school-district-no-7-substantially-complied-with-n-d-c-c-%c2%a7-44-04-18-by-providing-the-requester-with-the-legal-authority-for-redactions-verbally-on-the-day-he-picked-up-the-r/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-O-02.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
2026-O-02

DATE ISSUED: January 21, 2026

ISSUED TO: Williston Basin School District No. 7

CITIZEN'S REQUEST FOR OPINION

Tom Simon requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking whether Williston Basin School District No. 7 failed to provide him with the legal authority for redactions on open records in violation of N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.

FACTS PRESENTED

On May 31, 2023, Tom Simon entered the main office of Williston Basin School District No. 7 (District) and requested all records related to a teacher, the teacher's alleged inappropriate relationship with a student, and two paraprofessionals who were terminated by the District. 1 The District' s Human Resources Director "informed Mr. Simon that she could not immediately 'on the spot' provide him with those records due to ... confidentiality issues and the significant number of pending open records requests that had come in before his," though the District ultimately provided the requested records the next day on June 1, 2023. 2

Mr. Simon picked up the records in person and discovered they contained redactions related to the alleged incident involving the teacher and the student. 3 Mr. Simon then "immediately called" the District's superintendent and spoke with him about the redactions. 4 During the phone call, the

1
Letter from KrisAnn Norby-Jahner, Att'y at Law, Vogel Law Firm, to Annique M. Lockard, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Nov. 14, 2023). 2 Id. In his request for an opinion, Mr. Simon alleged that the Human Resources Director estimated it would take two weeks or more to fulfill his request and that this estimate of time violated the law. But the open records law's mandate that requests be fulfilled within a reasonable time is only concerned with the actual amount of time a public entity takes to respond to a request, not the public entity' s initial estimate of time. See N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(8). A public entity' s initial estimate of the time it will take to fulfill an open records request is therefore irrelevant to the question of whether it responded within a reasonable time. Here, the request was fulfilled the very next day, which is a reasonable amount of time. The initial estimate of two weeks was immaterial and not a violation of the open records law. 3 Id. 4 Email from Tom Simon, Williston Trending Topics News, Coyote Radio, 98.5 FM, to Off. of Att'y Gen. (June 6, 2023, 1:09 PM).

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2026-O-02
January 21, 2026
Page 2

superintendent "was very clear with Mr. Simon that he could not release any records or information protected under FERPA 5 and the pending Title IX 6 investigation. Any information that could reveal the identity of the student and/or compromise or release information from an ongoing Title IX investigation had to be redacted." 7

On June 5, 2023, the superintendent wrote Mr. Simon and reiterated that the redacted records were protected under FERPA and Title IX. 8 The superintendent "also provided Mr. Simon with guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights . .. providing a thorough explanation of the confidentiality of Title IX records that implicate FERPA." 9

ISSUE

Whether the District substantially complied with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 when it provided partially redacted records in response to an open records request, verbally informed the requester of the legal authority for the redactions, and later provided written references to the legal authority for the redactions.

ANALYSIS

"Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all records of a public entity are public records, open and accessible for inspection during reasonable office hours." 10 A denial of access to requested records "must describe the legal authority for the denial ... and must be in writing if requested." 11 This office must base its open records opinions on the facts provided by the public entity involved in the matter. 12

5
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
6
20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1689, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 7 Letter from KrisAnn Norby-Jahner, Att'y at Law, Vogel Law Firm, to Annique M. Lockard, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Nov. 14, 2023). In his request for an opinion, Mr. Simon alleged that the superintendent told him that "he was not obligated to tell [Mr. Simon] about the redactions or the exemption which allowed the redactions." The District, however, says that the superintendent told Mr. Simon that the records were protected under FERPA and Title IX. This office must base its opinion on the facts provided by the District. See N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(1). 8 Letter from KrisAnn Norby-Jahner, Att'y at Law, Vogel Law Firm, to Annique M. Lockard, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Nov. 14, 2023); Email from Richard Faidley to Tom Simon (June 5, 2023). 9 Letter from KrisAnn Norby-Jahner, Att'y at Law, Vogel Law Firm, to Annique M. Lockard, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Nov. 14, 2023). 10 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(1). 11 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(7). 12 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(1).

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2026-O-02
January 21, 2026
Page 3

According to the District, during a phone call soon after Mr. Simon received the records, the superintendent told Mr. Simon the legal authority for the redactions. The superintendent "was very clear with Mr. Simon that he could not release any records or information protected under FERPA and the pending Title IX investigation. Any information that could reveal the identity of the student and/or compromise or release information from an ongoing Title IX investigation had to be redacted." 13 There is no evidence that Mr. Simon made a request for the District to put the legal authority to redact the records in writing, nevertheless the superintendent provided the authority in writing along with a resource from the U.S. Department of Education that provided "a thorough explanation of the confidentiality of Title IX records that implicate FERPA." 14 While it would have been better practice for the District to provide the legal authority for the redactions at the time the records were picked up, there is no temporal requirement in statute for when the legal authority for redactions must be provided in such instances. 15 The District complied with the statute when the superintendent provided the legal authority on the phone immediately after Mr. Simon received the records. It is therefore my opinion that the District substantially complied with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(7) by verbally telling Mr. Simon the legal authority for the redactions. Because Mr. Simon never made a request for the District to put the legal authority in writing, the District had no obligation under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(7) to do so. Nevertheless, the District chose to provide written notice of the relevant legal authority, thereby exceeding their notification requirements.

CONCLUSION

The District substantially complied with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by providing the requester with the legal authority for the redactions verbally on the day he picked up the records.

Drew H. Wrigley
Attorney General

srh

cc: Tom Simon

13
Letter from KrisAnn Norby-Jahner, Att'y at Law, Vogel Law Firm, to Annique M. Lockard, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Nov. 14, 2023). 14 Id. 15 See N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(7).