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: it had blocked Jordan's email address in 2015 after sending him a certified letter informing him the City would no longer accept his email requests but would respond to in-person or written requests. He received that letter in February 2015. The City accordingly did not receive Jordan's 2023 email at all because it was filtered out by the block.
The AG concluded that the City did not violate the open records law. North Dakota's law generally allows initial requests to be made in any form (oral, written, electronic), but a public entity may exclude email if it provides clear notice and reasonable alternative methods. Mandan had done both: it gave Jordan written notice and identified two alternative methods (in person and in writing). Jordan chose to keep using email anyway. The City had no obligation to respond to a request it did not receive.
What this means for you
If you are a public entity dealing with vexatious or high-volume email requesters
You can selectively decline to receive email requests from a particular requester, as long as:
- You give the requester clear notice that email requests will no longer be accepted from that address.
- You provide reasonable alternative methods for making requests (in person, by phone, by mail, by hand-delivery, etc.).
- You document the notice (the certified letter approach used by Mandan is a clean record).
Once those conditions are met, you can implement an email block. The block does not violate the open records law because the requester still has reasonable access through the alternative methods.
This is a narrow tool. Use it sparingly and only when the volume from a single requester genuinely interferes with operations. The AG opinion does not endorse blocking on the basis of the requester's politics, viewpoint, or status; it only addresses managing volume.
If you are a citizen who has been told a public entity will not accept your email requests
The opinion is clear: you have to use the alternative methods the entity offers. Continuing to send email requests after receiving notice is futile. You are not violating any law, but you are also not getting a response.
The alternatives Mandan offered (in person and in writing) are typical. Mail a letter, hand-deliver a request, or visit the office during business hours. Once you do that, the entity is back on the clock to respond reasonably.
If you are a city attorney advising on a problem requester
Document everything. The Mandan certified letter from February 2015 was a key piece of evidence. The City could show:
- The exact date the letter was sent and received.
- The specific notice given (what is no longer accepted, what alternatives are available).
- The continuing pattern of email requests after the notice.
If the requester later complains to the AG, this paper trail is decisive. Without it, blocking an email address could look like a content-based or viewpoint-based exclusion, which is a different (and worse) legal risk.
If you are a citizen using email for routine records requests with no history of issues
Email remains a perfectly valid method. The City of Mandan's posture toward Mr. Jordan was specific to him after years of high-volume requests; it does not affect anyone else's email access. If your email request to a North Dakota public entity goes unanswered, the burden is still on the entity to respond reasonably.
Common questions
Q: Can a city decline to accept email requests from everyone?
A: That is a closer question and not addressed here. The opinion is about a specific block of a specific requester after notice. A blanket city-wide refusal of all email requests would face more skepticism, especially if the city accepts other electronic communications.
Q: What kind of notice is enough?
A: A clear written notice (preferably certified mail or some delivery confirmation method) stating: (1) email requests will no longer be accepted from this address, (2) what alternative methods are available, (3) the date the change takes effect.
Q: Does this rule apply to all public entities in North Dakota?
A: It applies to entities subject to the open records law, which is broad (state agencies, municipalities, counties, special districts, etc.). The same notice-and-alternative framework would apply.
Q: What if I have a disability that makes the alternative methods inaccessible?
A: That is a different legal issue (ADA, Rehabilitation Act). A public entity has independent obligations to provide accessible methods of communication for individuals with disabilities. If the alternatives offered are not accessible to you, raise the disability accommodation issue with the entity directly.
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. Section 44-04-18(2) is permissive: a public entity must furnish a copy when a request is made.
Two AG opinions limit that default for problem requesters. N.D.A.G. 2016-O-08 established that the open records law does not require entities to accept email requests if the entity provides notice and reasonable alternatives. N.D.A.G. 2018-O-23, also issued to Mr. Jordan, applied the same rule to him in a prior dispute with a different agency:
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.
Section 44-04-18(2) does not require a written or in-person request. So when an entity offers in-person and written alternatives, it is offering options that meet the statute's flexibility.
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
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." 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." No response was provided to Mr. Jordan. On October 5, 2023, Mr. Jordan requested an opinion from this office regarding the City's failure to respond to his records request.
The City did not receive the email sent by Mr. Jordan "as that account remains on our blocked list." 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." The City sent a certified letter to Mr. Jordan on February 27, 2015, informing him that the City "will no longer respond to record requests made via email." However, the City communicated it would reply to record requests "in person or in writing." Mr. Jordan received the letter on February 28, 2015.
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.
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. "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." Once a records request is made, the public entity "shall furnish the requester one copy of the public records requested." But "public entities cannot respond to requests they did not receive." "An unreceived open records request creates no more of an obligation to respond than does a request that is never sent or communicated." Generally, "[a]n initial request need not be made in person or in writing." 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. As this office has explained regarding a prior request by Mr. Jordan:
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 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.
In this case, Mr. Jordan had previously received notice from the City that it would not accept open record requests from him through email. 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
cc: S. Paul Jordan