If a North Dakota city has officially blocked someone's email address (after notifying them and offering alternative methods to make records requests), and the person sends a records request via that blocked email anyway, does the city violate the open records law by not responding?

Plain-English summary

S. Paul Jordan sent an email request to the City of Mandan in September 2023 asking for code enforcement records related to his home. The City did not respond. Jordan filed a complaint with the AG's office.

The City explained that it blocked Jordan's email address after a certified letter in February 2015 told him it would no longer accept his email requests but would respond to requests in person or in writing. The City said it did not receive his September 2023 email because the address remained blocked.

The AG found no violation. The opinion says an initial request need not be made in person or in writing, but an entity need not accept email requests if it gives notice and an alternative option. Mandan had told Jordan to use in-person or written requests. Because the blocked email never reached the City, it had no duty to respond to that request.

What this means for you

If you are a public entity that has blocked a requester's email address

The opinion says an entity need not receive requests by email if it provides notice and another option for making requests. Mandan's letter named in-person and written requests. The AG found no response duty for Jordan's 2023 email because the City did not receive it.

If you are a citizen whose email has been blocked by a public entity after notice

Mandan's 2015 notice identified in-person and written requests as alternatives. The AG found that Jordan's 2023 email did not reach the City and therefore did not trigger a response obligation. The opinion does not decide a request made through one of the offered methods.

If you are a citizen using email for routine records requests

The opinion is specific to a requester who had received written notice that the entity would no longer accept email requests from him. It does not address general email access by other requesters. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2) does not require requests to be made in person or in writing.

Common questions

Q: Did this opinion address a citywide email policy?
A: No. It addressed Mandan's block of Jordan's address after a letter giving him other ways to make records requests.

Q: What notice did Jordan receive?
A: The City sent a certified letter on February 27, 2015 saying it would no longer respond to his emailed records requests and would respond to requests made in person or in writing. The opinion says he received the letter the next day.

Q: Does an initial records request have to be written?
A: No. The opinion quotes N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2): an initial request "need not be made in person or in writing." The specific question here was whether Mandan had to respond to an email it did not receive after giving Jordan notice and other options.

Q: Did Mr. Jordan eventually get the records?
A: Yes. After the AG's office contacted the City, the City responded on December 29, 2023, informing Jordan that no responsive records existed. So the practical end result was a response (just delayed by his use of the wrong channel).

Background and statutory framework

The default rule is that initial requests need not be made in person or in writing. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2) says a public entity must furnish one copy of requested public records.

The opinion cites N.D.A.G. 2016-O-08 for the rule that an entity need not accept emailed requests if it provides notice and an alternative option. It quotes N.D.A.G. 2018-O-23, which addressed Jordan's earlier dispute with a different entity:

The open records law does not require entities to accept email requests for records, as long as this is communicated to the requester and alternative means are available to make the record requests. The DCIL informed Mr. Jordan that it would no longer be receiving his requests via email, but was accepting the record requests... in person or by telephonic means as allowed pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2). Mr. Jordan chose to continue sending requests via mail versus in person or by telephone.

The opinion applies that notice and alternative-option rule to Mandan's letter and email block.

The opinion also confirms a basic principle (citing N.D.A.G. 2025-O-14): "public entities cannot respond to requests they did not receive." An unreceived request creates no legal obligation.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1 (definitions)
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 (open records)
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 (AG opinion process)

Prior AG opinions:

• N.D.A.G. 2025-O-14 (no obligation to respond to unreceived requests)
• N.D.A.G. 2018-O-23 (Jordan-specific prior opinion)
• N.D.A.G. 2016-O-08 (alternative methods sufficient)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/the-north-dakota-attorney-general-issued-an-opinion-to-the-nd-state-city-of-mandan/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-O-07.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-07

DATE ISSUED: March 23, 2026

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 failed to respond to an open records request within a reasonable time in violation of N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.

FACTS PRESENTED

On September 11, 2023, S. Paul Jordan sent an email to "[email protected]" seeking "a copy of all code enforcement related records on my home ... for the month of May of 2023." 1 Mr. Jordan further requested that the City of Mandan "provide written notification if no such records exist and please provide any legal authority relied up [sic] if part or all of any records I requested will be withheld." 2 No response was provided to Mr. Jordan. 3 On October 5, 2023, Mr. Jordan requested an opinion from this office regarding the City's failure to respond to his records request. 4

The City did not receive the email sent by Mr. Jordan "as that account remains on our blocked list." 5 The City intentionally blocked Mr. Jordan's email address from all of the City's email accounts due to "receiving many email requests from Mr. Jordan." 6 The City sent a certified letter to Mr. Jordan on February 27, 2015, informing him that the City "will no longer respond to

1 Email from S. Paul Jordan to City of Mandan (Sept. 11, 2023, 10:01 PM). 2 Id. 3 Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm'r, City of Mandan, to Annique M. Lockard, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Dec. 22, 2023). 4 Email from S. Paul Jordan, to Att'y Gen. Wrigley (Oct. 6, 2023, 1:42 PM). 5 Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm'r, City of Mandan, to Annique M. Lockard, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Dec. 22, 2023). 6 Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm'r, City of Mandan, to William D. Woodworth, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Jan. 13, 2026).

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2026-O-07
March 23, 2026
Page 2

record requests made via email." 7 However, the City communicated it would reply to record requests "in person or in writing." 8 Mr. Jordan received the letter on February 28, 2015. 9

After this office communicated with the City regarding the request for an opinion, the City responded to Mr. Jordan on December 29, 2023, indicating that there were no records responsive to the request. 10

ISSUE

Whether the City violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by failing to respond to an open records request within a reasonable time when the City provided prior notice and alternative means of communication before blocking an email address.

ANALYSIS

The City is a public entity that is subject to the open records law. 11 "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." 12 Once a records request is made, the public entity "shall furnish the requester one copy of the public records requested." 13 But "public entities cannot respond to requests they did not receive." 14 "An unreceived open records request creates no more of an obligation to respond than does a request that is never sent or communicated." 15 Generally, "[a]n initial request need not be made in person or in writing." 16 However, a public entity is also not required to receive record requests submitted by email if it provides notice and an alternative option for making requests. 17 As this office has explained regarding a prior request by Mr. Jordan:

7 Letter from Malcom H. Brown, City Att'y, to Mr. S. Paul Jordan (Feb. 27, 2015); Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm'r, City of Mandan, to William D. Woodworth, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Jan. 13, 2026). 8 Id. 9 Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm'r, City of Mandan, to William D. Woodworth, Assistant

Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Jan. 13, 2026).
10 Email from Jim Neubauer, City Adm'r, City of Mandan, to S. Paul Jordan (Dec. 29, 2023 5:28 PM). 11 N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-17.1(11), (13)(b). 12 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(1). 13 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2). 14 N.D.A.G. 2025-O-14. 15 N.D.A.G. 2025-O-14. 16 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2). 17 See N.D.A.G. 2016-O-08.

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2026-O-07
March 23, 2026
Page 3

Mr. Jordan also alleges that because the DCIL refuses to accept email record requests from him, that it is contributing to the delay. The open records law does not require entities to accept email requests for records, as long as this is communicated to the requestor and alternative means are available to make the record requests. The DCIL informed Mr. Jordan that it would no longer be receiving his requests via email, but was accepting the record requests ... in person or by telephonic means as allowed pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2). Mr. Jordan chose to continue sending requests via mail versus in person or by telephone. 18

In this case, Mr. Jordan had previously received notice from the City that it would not accept open record requests from him through email. 19 Mr. Jordan then sent a records request to the City by email, which it did not receive. Because his email was blocked, and Mr. Jordan did not utilize the alternative methods that the City has provided to him for making record requests, the City did not receive his request. It is my opinion that the City did not violate the open record law when it did not reply to a request that it did not receive.

CONCLUSION

The City provided Mr. Jordan with notice and alternative means to make open records requests before blocking his email address. As such, the City did not violate N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 in this instance because it had no obligation to respond to a request that it did not receive.

Drew H. Wrigley
Attorney General

wdw

cc: S. Paul Jordan

18 N.D.A.G. 2018-O-23 (internal citations omitted).
19 Letter from Malcom H. Brown, City Att'y, to Mr. S. Paul Jordan (Feb. 27, 2015); Letter from Jim Neubauer, City Adm'r, City of Mandan, to William D. Woodworth, Assistant Att'y Gen., Off. of Att'y Gen. (Jan. 13, 2026).