How long does a North Dakota state agency have to respond to a public records request, and does it have to create new reports from its database?

Plain-English summary

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley reached a split conclusion in a records dispute between a citizen and the state Department of Veterans' Affairs. The requester, Kelly Volk, asked for several specific reports from the agency's case management database, including claims-by-county and appeals-by-county breakdowns. The agency provided the reports it could pull from the database as they existed, but told her that certain county-level breakdowns did not exist as standalone reports and that state-level staff could not query the database to generate them.

On that piece, the AG sided with the agency: a public entity is not required to create or compile a record that does not already exist, so declining to build new reports from raw data was not a violation. But on timing, the AG found a real problem. The agency took six days just to acknowledge the request (even though other staff were aware of it the same day it was submitted) and sixteen days to fully respond, well beyond the "few hours or a few days" standard the AG's office and North Dakota courts use to judge reasonableness. An employee's absence from the office is not, by itself, an excuse for that kind of delay.

What this means for you

State agency records officers

The opinion holds that your agency is not required to create a new report or query it does not already have the capability to generate, even if a requester believes the underlying data could technically support it. But the opinion also holds that failing to acknowledge a records request for six days, when other staff were aware of it the same day, and taking sixteen days total to respond, violates the reasonable-time requirement in N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(8), regardless of whether the lead employee who normally handles the request happens to be out of the office.

People requesting data or reports from a state database

The opinion confirms that if you want raw underlying data rather than a specific report, you should ask for the data itself; the agency here was not held to have violated the law by providing existing reports instead of data it never had a chance to export, since the requester never separately asked for the raw data.

Government attorneys advising on records-request timelines

The opinion holds that the applicable measure for a reasonable response is "a few hours or a few days rather than several days or weeks," and that "providing access to records generally does not require the approval, supervision, or action by a head of a department," meaning a single employee's absence does not toll the clock when other staff are aware of the request.

Common questions

Q: Does a North Dakota agency have to build a custom report if I ask for one from its database?
A: No, according to this opinion. An agency is not required to create or compile a record that does not exist, including a report that would require a new database query it does not have the capability to run.

Q: How fast does a state agency have to respond to a records request in North Dakota?
A: The opinion applies a standard of "a few hours or a few days rather than several days or weeks," citing prior AG opinions and Kuntz v. State. A sixteen-day response, including a six-day delay just to acknowledge the request, was found unreasonable here.

Q: Is it an excuse if the person who normally handles records requests is out of the office?
A: Not by itself, based on this opinion. It notes that providing access to records is generally a ministerial act that does not require a department head's personal approval, so other available staff should be able to acknowledge and process the request.

Q: What happens if I only ask for a report but really want the underlying raw data?
A: Based on this opinion, be specific. The requester here asked for particular reports, not the raw data itself, and the AG treated the agency's response as adequate for what was actually requested.

Background and statutory framework

North Dakota's open records law requires public entities to provide records in their possession or custody upon request, including records stored in computers, but does not require them to create or compile a record that does not exist. Separately, the law requires a public entity to respond within a reasonable time, and "automation of public records must not erode the right of access to those records." North Dakota case law, including Kuntz v. State, has interpreted "reasonable time" to mean a few hours or days in ordinary cases, with the specific facts of each request determining what counts as reasonable.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18, general open records access requirement
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2), duty to furnish a copy of requested public records
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3), electronic records access and automation requirement
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(4), no obligation to create or compile a record that does not exist
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(8), reasonable response time requirement
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1(16), definition of a "record," including computer-stored records
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(1), AG opinions based on facts provided by the public entity

Cases:
- Kuntz v. State, 2019 ND 46, 923 N.W.2d 513, standard for a reasonable response time to a records request

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/the-north-dakota-attorney-general-issued-an-opinion-to-the-department-of-veterans-affairs/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2026-O-12.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-12

DATE ISSUED:

June 26, 2026

ISSUED TO:

Department of Veterans' Affairs
CITIZEN'S REQUEST FOR OPINION

Kelly Volk requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking whether
the North Dakota Department of Veterans' Affairs (Veterans' Affairs) failed to provide requested
reports from a database or failed to timely respond to the request for reports, and thereby violated
N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.
FACTS PRESENTED
Ms. Volk made a request to Veterans' Affairs on May 3, 2023, seeking specific reports for years
2021, 2022, and 2023 from a relational database case management system known as VetraSpec.
She sought reports on the number of new claims submissions by the Veterans' Affairs, the
number of claim submissions by county, and the number of appeals. Ms. Volk also sought the
total awarded dollars for all claims by year, and the total number of the claimants' chosen powers
of attorney. It was her understanding that all the data was exportable from the database into
other programs, such as Microsoft Excel, in order to create other reports. The request for records
was sent to Veterans' Affairs Commissioner Lonnie Wangen, who was out of the office until May
15, 2023. In his absence, other Veterans' Affairs staff received the request and worked to
determine what records would be responsive.

On May 9, 2023, Ms. Volk followed up with Veterans' Affairs because she had not received a
response. Within two hours of that follow-up email, Commissioner Wangen replied to the email,
acknowledged the request, and indicated Veterans' Affairs was in the process of "gathering the
documents."
Veterans' Affairs provided information in response to the request on May 19, 2023. For each of
the requested years, Veterans' Affairs provided the number of new claim submissions, as well as
the total awarded dollars for all claims per the database. It also provided the number of appeals
by Veterans' Affairs. Veterans' Affairs indicated that the report for the number of new claim
submissions by county, and the report for the number of appeals by each county did not exist.
Veterans' Affairs has informed this office that, not only do the reports not exist, but that state-
level users do not have access to create the queries necessary to generate the requested reports
that were unavailable.
On May 23, 2023, Ms. Volk indicated that she was unsatisfied with the response to the request,
as she claimed she had requested the raw data, not the reports that Veterans' Affairs provided
her. She further speculated that the nonexistent reports could easily be created and should be
turned over. She did not ask Veterans' Affairs to send her the raw data from the database.
Veterans' Affairs responded and indicated that it complied with Ms. Volk's request and that no
"other data exists."
That same day, Ms. Volk asked this office for an opinion. She is seeking an opinion about
whether the delay between her request and Veterans' Affairs' response was reasonable, and
whether the reply from Veterans' Affairs was responsive to her request.
ISSUES
1. Whether Veterans' Affairs violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by failing to provide requested
reports created from its database.
2. Whether Veterans' Affairs violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by not responding to a request
for reports from its database within a reasonable time.
ANALYSIS
Issue One
Veterans' Affairs is a public entity and is subject to the open record law. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1(13)(a). See N.D.C.C. ch. 37-18 (creating Veterans' Affairs).
"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." N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(1). A record is "information of any kind, regardless
of the physical form or characteristic by which the information is stored, recorded, or
reproduced" and must be in the "possession or custody of the public entity or its agent." N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1(16). This
includes "records stored in computers." N.D.A.G. 2007-O-1, citing N.D.A.G. Letter to Tracy (Sept. 10, 1992). Upon a request, the public entity shall furnish the
requester one copy of the public records requested. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(2). "Automation of public records must not
erode the right of access to those records." N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3). A public entity "must provide reasonable public
access to records electronically maintained and must ensure that exempt or confidential records
are not disclosed except as otherwise provided by law." N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3). However, a public entity is not required
to "create or compile a record that does not exist." N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(4).
When issuing a public records opinion, the opinion shall be based on the facts given by the
public entity. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(1). Ms. Volk specifically requested "the following reports from the raw data
uploaded" into the VetraSpec database. When specifying the reports she was requesting, Ms.
Volk further clarified she was looking for "[p]roductivity reports," and specific numbers
regarding the claim submissions and awarded dollars. Veterans' Affairs provided the reports
that it possessed, and indicated that the other request reports did not exist. The requested
reports would need to be created in order to provide the information to Ms. Volk. Veterans'
Affairs provided the reports that did exist, and was not obligated to create records that did not
exist. Therefore, it is my opinion that Veterans' Affairs complied with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.

In this case, Ms. Volk only requested reports generated from the database, she did not request the data stored
in the database itself which may be subject to disclosure. See, e.g., N.D.A.G. 2008-O-17
(finding violation to provide requested records when database could have been exported into
ASCII text files or PDF formats); N.D.A.G. 2007-O-01 (holding Department of Transportation
was required to create software to allow meaningful access to data in database).

Issue Two
The open records law is violated when there is an unreasonable delay in responding to the
request. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(8). Although an immediate response is not necessary, the response time should generally
be "measured in a few hours or a few days rather than several days or weeks." Kuntz v. State, 2019 ND 46, ¶ 28, 923 N.W.2d 513
(quoting N.D.A.G. 2011-O-07). See also, N.D.A.G. 2009-O-07; N.D.A.G. 2008-O-08; N.D.A.G. 2004-O-07; N.D.A.G. 2002-O-06. "Records are not
required to be on hand," but some sort of response to the request should occur in that period. The
reasonableness of the delay is determined by the facts of the particular request. Kuntz v. State, 2019 ND 46, ¶ 28, 923 N.W.2d 513,
citing N.D.A.G. 2014-O-21 (11-day delay), N.D.A.G. 2017-O-06 (25-day delay), N.D.A.G. 2014-O-06 (2-month delay), N.D.A.G. 2015-O-17 (9-month delay). Generally,
employee absence is "not a sufficient reason to delay a request for records." N.D.A.G. 2006-O-15. "[P]roviding
access to records generally does not require the approval, supervision, or action by a head of a
department." Id.
Ms. Volk's initial request for records was submitted on May 3, 2023. Even though Mr. Wangen
was out of town that day, other staff were aware of the request as of May 3, 2023 and began
working on a response. However, no acknowledgment of the request was provided to Ms. Volk
until she followed up on her request on May 9, 2023, six days after her initial request. Mr.
Wangen was unavailable to review a proposed response until May 19, 2023. The records were
not provided to Ms. Volk until sixteen days after her initial request.
Although Mr. Wangen was out of the office, under the facts of this particular case, the delay in
acknowledging and later responding to Ms. Volk's request was unreasonable. Other employees
were available to acknowledge the request, but they only did so after six days had passed.
Additionally, there was no reason Mr. Wangen needed to review or approve the response to Ms.
Volk: providing records "is a ministerial act." N.D.A.G. 2006-O-15 (quoting N.D.A.G. 2001-O-02).
CONCLUSIONS
1. Veterans' Affairs complied with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by providing the responsive reports
that existed within its custody or possession, and it was not obligated to create reports
that did not exist.
2. Veterans' Affairs failed to comply with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(8) by failing to provide an
acknowledgment of a request and for failing to provide records within a reasonable time.
The existing records have been provided to Ms. Volk. Therefore, there are no further corrective
measures to be taken by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

wdw
cc:

Kelly Volk