Did a North Dakota humane society violate open-records law by providing only part of a reporter's request?

Short answer Yes. The requester never narrowed or withdrew the remaining items, so the society's mistaken belief that he needed only certain meeting records did not excuse its partial response. It had to provide the rest at no charge.
State
North Dakota
Opinion
2026-O-17
Issued
August 31, 2026
Issued by
Office of the North Dakota Attorney General

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2026. Ask about yours and see what current North Dakota law means for your facts, with citations you can check.

Disclaimer: This is an official North Dakota Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed North Dakota attorney for advice on your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A Jamestown Sun reporter requested financial reports, meeting minutes, tax records, treasurer's reports, and bylaws from the James River Humane Society. The society provided only some records because its board mistakenly believed he needed only monthly meeting materials from a particular period.

Attorney General Drew Wrigley found a violation. Nothing showed that the reporter narrowed or withdrew the rest of his request, so the society had to provide all remaining records at no charge.

The society was a public entity for open-records purposes because city mill-levy funds supported it in part. The opinion required correction within seven days. If the requester later prevailed in a civil action after noncompliance, costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees would be mandatory, and responsible individuals could face personal liability.

What this means for you

Publicly supported nonprofits

An internal misunderstanding does not narrow a written records request. The custodian needs evidence that the requester actually modified or withdrew items.

Journalists and requesters

The opinion required the omitted records without charge and preserved statutory remedies if the violation was not corrected promptly.

Common questions

Q: Why was the private humane society subject to the law? A: It received support from Jamestown mill-levy funds and therefore qualified as a public entity for open-records purposes.

Q: What remedy did the AG order?
A: Production of the remaining records at no charge within seven days.

Background and statutory framework

N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 governed the records duty, and N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 authorized the opinion and correction process. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2 addressed civil enforcement and fees.

Citations and references

  • N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1
  • N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18
  • N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2

Source

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

Drew H. Wrigley
ATTORNEY GENERAL

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS SUMMARY OPINION

2026-O-17
DATE ISSUED: August 31, 2026
ISSUED TO: James River Humane Society
SUMMARY OPINION!

Masaki Ova, reporter for the Jamestown Sun, requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking whether the James River Humane Society (Humane Society) violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by withholding records in response to an open records request. Mr. Ova requested from the Humane Society certain financial reports, meeting minutes, tax records, treasurer’s reports, and bylaws. The Humane Society admits that it only provided some of the records requested and did not provide the remaining records because its board members were “under the impression that all [Mr. Ova] needed was the monthly meetings from August 2023 to August of 2024.” But there is no evidence that Mr. Ova modified his original request or withdrew his request for the remaining records. It is therefore my opinion that the Humane Society violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by not providing all of the requested records.

STEPS NEEDED TO REMEDY VIOLATION
The Humane Society must provide the remaining records to Masaki Ova at no charge.

While I have every reason to expect the James River Humane Society will remedy this situation, failure to take the corrective measures described in this opinion within seven days of the date this opinion is issued will result in mandatory costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees if the person requesting the opinion prevails in a civil action under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.23

' This Summary Opinion is issued pursuant to the authority granted to this office in N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(1).

? The James River Humane Society is supported in part by mill levy funds from the City of Jamestown and is therefore a public entity for purposes of the open records law. N.D.A.G. 2015-O-01.

3N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(2).

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2026-O-17
August 31, 2026
Page 2

Failure to take these corrective measures may also result in personal liability for the person or persons responsible for the noncompliance.*

Drew H. Wrigley
Attorney General

sth

ce: Masaki Ova

4 Id.

What does North Dakota law say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2026. Ezel checks the current North Dakota statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace