Title: WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2008 WI 69 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP1473; 2006AP174; 2006AP175 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
WIREdata, Inc., 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Village of Sussex and Village of Sussex 
Custodian, 
          Defendants-Co-Appellants-Cross 
Petitioners, 
 
Grota Appraisals, LLC, Michael L. Grota and 
Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC, 
          Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners. 
 
 
WIREdata, Inc., 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
Village of Thiensville, 
          Defendant-Respondent, 
 
Grota Appraisals, LLC and Michael L. Grota, 
Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC, 
          Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
 
WIREdata, Inc., 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
City of Port Washington, 
          Defendant-Respondent-Cross Petitioner, 
 
Matthies Assessments, Inc., 
          Defendant-Respondent, 
 
American Family Insurance Company, 
          Intervenor. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2007 WI App 22 
Reported at: 298 Wis. 2d 743, 729 N.W.2d 757 
(Ct. App. 2007-Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 25, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 13, 2008   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
 
2 
 
COUNTY: 
Waukesha & Ozaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Mark S. Gempeler & Thomas R. Wolfgram   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs (opinion filed).   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendants-co-appellants-cross petitioners and the 
defendant-respondent-cross-petitioner 
there 
were 
briefs 
by 
Raymond J. Pollen, Remzy D. Bitar, and Crivello Carlson & 
Mentkowski, s.c., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Remzy D. 
Bitar. 
 
For the defendants-appellants-petitioners there were briefs 
by Joseph A. Kromholz, Daniel R. Johnson, and Ryan Kromholz & 
Manion, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Daniel R. Johnson. 
 
For the defendant-respondent there were briefs by Maile E. 
Beres, Barbara O’Brien, and Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, 
S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Barbara O’Brien. 
 
For the respondent there were briefs by Alan H. Deutch, 
Deutch Law Offices, SC, and A Division of Deutch & Weiss, LLC, 
Fox Point, and oral argument by Alan H. Deutch. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Andrew T. Phillips, 
Kristen D. DeCato, and Stadler, Centofanti & Phillips, S.C., 
Mequon, on behalf of the Wisconsin Counties Association. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Daniel M. Olson, 
Madison, on behalf of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Joseph P. Guidote, Jr., 
Outagamie county corporation counsel, on behalf of the Wisconsin 
Association of County Corporation Counsel. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by David A. Strifling and 
Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee; E. King Poor and Quarles & Brady 
LLP, Chicago, Ill.; and Michael R. Klipper, Christopher A. Mohr, 
David Ludwig, and Meyer, Klipper & Mohr, PLLC, Washington, D.C., 
on behalf of First American CoreLogic, Inc., LexisNexis, the 
Real Estate Information Professionals Association, and the 
Software and Information Industry Association. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Mary E. Burke, 
assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was J.B. Van 
Hollen, attorney general, on behalf of the Wisconsin Department 
of Justice. 
 
 
3 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Paul W. Schwarzenbart 
and Lee, Kilkelly, Paulson & Younger, S.C., Madison, on behalf 
of Wisconsin Land Title Association, Inc. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Robert J. Dreps, 
Rebecca Kathryn Mason, and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Madison, on 
behalf of the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association, Wisconsin Freedom 
of Information Council, Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and 
Wisconsin Newspaper Association. 
 
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 69
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos. 2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175 
(L.C. Nos. 
2001CV1403, 2001CV198, & 2001CV216) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
WIREdata, Inc., 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
 
v. 
 
Village of Sussex and Village of Sussex 
Custodian, 
 
          Defendants-Co-Appellants-Cross- 
          Petitioners, 
 
Grota Appraisals, LLC, Michael L. Grota and 
Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC, 
 
          Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners. 
_________________________________ 
 
WIREdata, Inc., 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
 
v. 
 
Village of Thiensville, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent, 
 
Grota Appraisals, LLC, Michael L. Grota, and 
Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
_________________________________ 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 25, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
2 
 
 
WIREdata, Inc., 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
 
v. 
 
City of Port Washington, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent-Cross- 
          Petitioner, 
 
Matthies Assessments, Inc., 
 
          Defendant-Respondent, 
 
American Family Insurance Company, 
 
          Intervenor. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed in 
part, affirmed in part, and remanded. 
 
¶1 
N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.   This is a review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals.1 
¶2 
Petitioners, Grota Appraisals, LLC, and Michael L. 
Grota (Grota); Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC; and the 
Village of Thiensville (Thiensville); and cross-petitioners, the 
Village 
of 
Sussex 
and 
the 
Village 
of 
Sussex 
Custodian 
(collectively, Sussex); and the City of Port Washington (Port 
                                                 
1 WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2007 WI App 22, 298 
Wis. 2d 743, 729 N.W.2d 757. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
3 
 
Washington)2 seek review of a published decision of the court of 
appeals.  The court of appeals' decision affirmed in part and 
reversed in part the decision of the Circuit Court for Waukesha 
County (the Sussex action), Judge Mark S. Gempeler, presiding.  
The court of appeals' decision also affirmed in part, reversed 
in part, and remanded the decision of the Circuit Court for 
Ozaukee County (the Thiensville and Port Washington actions), 
Judge Thomas R. Wolfgram, presiding.  The defendant-respondent 
is Matthies Assessments, Inc. (Matthies Assessments).  The 
plaintiff in the circuit court cases was WIREdata, Inc. 
(WIREdata).  These cases deal with the interpretation and 
application of Wisconsin's open records law, Wis. Stat. § 19.31 
et seq. (2005-06).3  These cases were considered together by the 
court of appeals, and they are considered together by this court 
as well. 
¶3 
There are six principal issues upon appeal.  The first 
issue is whether WIREdata properly commenced the mandamus 
actions against the municipalities under the open records law, 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1), when the municipalities had 
                                                 
2 American Family Insurance Company intervened in WIREdata's 
action against Port Washington and Matthies Assessments, Inc. 
3 All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.  We are utilizing 
the current version of the statutes so as to best provide 
guidance to future courts.  There was only one instance where a 
relevant provision has been added since the commencement of 
these claims, and we note that one specific occurrence later in 
this opinion.  No relevant provisions that are cited herein have 
changed since the commencement of these claims. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
4 
 
not denied WIREdata's requests for the records before WIREdata 
filed the mandamus actions.4  The second issue is whether 
WIREdata's initial written requests were insufficient as a 
matter of law as to time and subject matter.  The third issue is 
whether a municipality's independent contractor assessor is an 
authority under the open records law, so that the independent 
contractor assessor is a proper recipient of an open records 
request.5  The fourth issue is whether a municipality may avoid 
liability under the open records law by contracting with an 
independent contractor assessor for the collection, maintenance, 
and custody of its property assessment records, and by then 
directing any requester of those records to the independent 
contractor assessor who has custody of the sought-after records.  
The fifth issue is whether the court of appeals was mistaken in 
concluding that the petitioners and the cross-petitioners had 
not fulfilled WIREdata's initial open records requests, once 
                                                 
4 We have combined the first issue presented by the 
petitioners ("Did the municipalities deny WireData's [sic] 
request prior to WireData [sic] filing the mandamus action?") 
and the third issue presented by the cross-petitioners ("Is a 
mandamus action properly commenced against municipalities under 
the Open Records Law pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1) where the 
municipality never denied the request for records?") because 
they are largely duplicative. 
5 We have combined the fourth issue presented by the 
petitioners ("Are third party consultants, like Andrew Pelkey or 
Impact Consultants, proper recipients of an open records 
request?") 
and 
the 
first 
issue 
presented 
by 
the 
cross-
petitioners ("Does an 'authority' under the Open Records      
Law . . . include a municipality's independent contractor 
assessor?") because they are largely duplicative. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
5 
 
they produced portable document files (hereafter, PDF or PDFs) 
with the requested information and gave those files to WIREdata.  
The sixth issue is whether the fees charged to WIREdata were 
fees that complied with the law for that requested output. 
¶4 
We hold as follows on the issues: based on the facts 
of the present case, WIREdata did not properly commence the 
mandamus actions against the municipalities under the open 
records law, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1), because the 
municipalities had not denied WIREdata's requests for the 
records before WIREdata filed the mandamus actions; WIREdata's 
initial written requests were not insufficient as a matter of 
law as to time and subject matter; a municipality's independent 
contractor assessor is not an authority under the open records 
law, so that the independent contractor assessor is not a proper 
recipient of an open records request; a municipality may not 
avoid liability under the open records law by contracting with 
an 
independent 
contractor 
assessor 
for 
the 
collection, 
maintenance, and custody of its property assessment records and 
by then directing any requester of those records to the 
independent contractor assessor who has custody of the sought-
after records; the court of appeals was mistaken in concluding 
that the petitioners and the cross-petitioners had not fulfilled 
WIREdata's initial open records requests, once they produced 
PDFs with the requested information and gave those files to 
WIREdata; and, because no fees were actually charged for the 
information the municipalities provided to WIREdata in the PDF 
format, the municipalities did not violate the open records law.  
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
6 
 
Accordingly, the municipalities are not liable for any damages 
in the present action. 
¶5 
We reverse in part and affirm in part the decision of 
the court of appeals.  WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2007 
WI App 22, ¶¶2, 3, 67-70, 298 Wis. 2d 743, 729 N.W.2d 757.  In 
order to assist the reader in understanding our determinations, 
in relation to that decision, we disagree with the court of 
appeals' 
specific 
holdings 
as 
follows: 
that 
the 
three 
municipalities denied the open records requests of WIREdata and, 
thus, violated the open records law; that the PDFs were 
insufficient to comply with such open records requests; that the 
open records law requires access to the computerized database; 
that the "enhanced" demands did not require the creation of new 
records; and that WIREdata is entitled to fees and costs from 
each of the municipalities.  However, we agree with the court of 
appeals' specific holdings as follows: that the municipalities 
are the responsible authorities under the open records law; that 
such responsibility cannot be shifted to independent contractor 
assessors; and that the initial written requests of WIREdata 
were valid and, thus, were not insufficient as to subject matter 
and length of time. 
I 
¶6 
This litigation arose when WIREdata, which is a wholly 
owned subsidiary of the Multiple Listing Service, Inc., made a 
series of open records requests.  The relevant requests asked 
Sussex, Thiensville, and Port Washington to provide WIREdata 
with information about their property assessments.  WIREdata 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
7 
 
conceded that it intended to market and resell the requested 
information to assist real estate agents and brokers. 
¶7 
The three municipalities had contracted with private, 
independent contractor assessors to complete their property 
assessments.  WIREdata initially made a request to all three 
municipalities directly that they provide the company with the 
requested data.  WIREdata's "initial" request to Sussex and also 
its "initial" request to Thiensville asked the municipalities to 
provide the data to the company in an "electronic/digital" 
format. 
 
However, 
WIREdata's 
"initial" 
request 
to 
Port 
Washington did not specify a requested format for the data's 
provision.  We note at the outset that WIREdata has admitted 
that all three municipalities offered the company copies of the 
relevant property information in written form. 
¶8 
Later, 
WIREdata 
made 
requests 
directly 
to 
the 
independent contractor assessors for those records to be 
provided to the company in the format that was created and 
maintained by those independent contractor assessors in a 
computerized database (the "enhanced" requests).6  We note at the 
outset that WIREdata's attorney admitted at oral argument before 
this court that the company had never provided its "enhanced" 
requests directly to any of the municipalities in this action.  
                                                 
6 WIREdata's "enhanced" requests attempted to dictate that 
the data would be provided to the company in a particular 
computerized 
format, 
which 
included 
fixed 
length, 
pipe 
delimited, or comma-quote outputs.  The "enhanced" requests 
included WIREdata's request for 49 specific fields of data per 
property. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
8 
 
While the data was not provided in the format requested in 
WIREdata's "enhanced" requests, the municipalities gave WIREdata 
access to the requested data using the PDF format, which 
complied with WIREdata's "initial" requests for the data either 
in no specified format or in an "electronic/digital" format.  
WIREdata was not satisfied with the provision of the relevant 
data using the PDF format. 
 
A.  The Sussex action in the Waukesha County Circuit Court 
¶9 
Sussex had contracted with Grota Appraisals, LLC 
(Grota Appraisals), which was owned by Grota, to conduct the 
village's property assessments from January 1, 2000, to December 
31, 2004.  Upon completing a property assessment, Grota 
Appraisals' employees would enter the raw property appraisal 
data into a computer software program called Market Drive. 
¶10 Grota also owns Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC 
(Assessment Technologies).  Assessment Technologies was the 
company that had developed and copyrighted the Market Drive 
software.  It then licensed the software to property appraisers, 
such as Grota Appraisals and Matthies Assessments.  The software 
collates and arranges the collected raw property appraisal data 
into many different tables and reports for different categories 
of properties.  Grota Appraisals sublicensed certain read-only 
capabilities of the software to Sussex so that the village could 
print the tables and reports that the software assembled. 
¶11 The open records law request involved in this action 
was submitted to Sussex on April 20, 2001 (the "initial" 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
9 
 
request).  On that day, WIREdata sent a registered letter to the 
Sussex village assessor, which read, in relevant part, as 
follows: 
This is to formally request an electronic/digital copy 
of the detailed real estate property records (showing 
the specific characteristics of each parcel and the 
improvements thereupon) used and/or maintained by the 
Assessor in determining the proper assessments for 
each parcel within the Village of Sussex. 
In this letter, WIREdata requested that the company be advised 
of "any cost involved . . . before incurring same." 
¶12 In 
response, 
Sussex 
directed 
WIREdata 
to 
Grota 
Appraisals for a response.  In turn, Grota Appraisals forwarded 
the matter on to Andrew Pelkey (Pelkey), the owner of Impact 
Consultants, Inc., which was the private computer programming 
firm that Assessment Technologies had contracted with to program 
the Market Drive software. 
¶13 Only four days later, on April 24, 2001, WIREdata sent 
a letter to Sussex's counsel that cited the open records law as 
the legal basis for its request.  The same letter also noted the 
potential for a mandamus action if Sussex denied its request.  
While the record before us does not reflect that the parties had 
any prior history of transactions between them, the letter 
boldly stated, "Based on the history of your governmental 
officials, I suspect that they may be giving some thought to 
denying my client's requests."  The letter then continued by 
stating: 
 
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that if 
the request is denied in whole or in part or if the 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
10 
 
Municipality tries to charge an amount which is not 
the actual and direct cost of the copying, we will be 
seeking 
immediate 
relief 
via 
a 
mandamus 
action 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37. 
Also, it stated, "I am also concerned that your client may try 
to become 'creative' in ascertaining the costs involved."  The 
letter continued by informing Sussex that, if WIREdata was 
"forced to start a mandamus action, [WIREdata] will also be 
seeking reimbursement of attorney fees." 
¶14 On 
approximately 
May 
4, 
2001, 
Pelkey 
contacted 
WIREdata's Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Thomas 
Curtis (Curtis).  Curtis later stated that Pelkey gave him the 
understanding that Pelkey would help WIREdata get the data.  By 
a letter dated May 4, 2001, Pelkey informed Sussex's counsel of 
the difficulties associated with providing the now "enhanced" 
data requested by Curtis directly to Pelkey.  Pelkey noted that 
it would be very difficult to export the requested data from the 
Market Drive software into the now requested "enhanced" format 
of a computer file that supported a fixed length, pipe 
delimited, or comma-quote output.  Pelkey stated that this was 
the case because the functionality of the Microsoft Word export 
feature worked fine "for simple 'list' reports" but did not work 
well 
for 
the 
property 
records 
report 
that 
WIREdata 
was 
requesting, which was "very complex."  Pelkey also explained 
that the only other option available to export the requested 
data, albeit not in the newly requested "enhanced" format, from 
the software would be to use a laser printer to export 
individually, and print off, each of the approximately 2,000 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
11 
 
property reports, which Pelkey stated would be a time consuming, 
manual task.  The records could not be printed and exported in a 
batch job because a single computer would not have enough disk 
space to perform that task.  Pelkey further stated that the 
databases themselves could not be copied as a means of providing 
the raw data because "the design and format of the databases 
[are] . . . trade secret[s] and [are] the intellectual property 
of Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC." 
¶15 As part of WIREdata's "enhanced" request, Curtis 
directly sent Pelkey an e-mail that requested 49 selected fields 
from the Market Drive software for each property, such as the 
number of stories for each house, each house's exterior type, 
and whether each house had a swimming pool.  The e-mail further 
stated that "[a]ny type of electronic output and media" would be 
acceptable, such as fixed length, pipe delimited, and comma-
quote.  Importantly, when WIREdata's counsel was asked at oral 
argument before this court whether WIREdata had ever provided 
its "enhanced" request directly to any of the municipalities in 
this action, WIREdata's counsel admitted that the company had 
not provided the "enhanced" request to any of the municipalities 
themselves. 
¶16 After 
receiving 
the 
"enhanced" 
request, 
Pelkey 
responded with an e-mail to Curtis that outlined the costs and 
terms of producing the requested records in the "enhanced" 
format using the Market Drive software.  The e-mail detailed the 
six files per municipality that would be required to provide the 
highly detailed information WIREdata had requested using the 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
12 
 
"enhanced" file format.  Pelkey informed WIREdata that it would 
need to pay a one-time fee of $6,600 to program, test, and 
export the relevant programs to produce the six data files in 
the "enhanced" format.  The fee also included "the cost of 
running the export, checking the result[,] and burning the CDs."  
The $6,600 fee apparently would cover the programming and 
testing fees for all three municipalities.  On top of the fee to 
program and test the software that could provide the requested 
data in the "enhanced" file format, Pelkey informed WIREdata 
that an additional 50 cents per parcel fee would be required for 
the "enhanced" file request.  Pelkey also noted that the data in 
the "enhanced" file format would be meant only for WIREdata and 
its subscribers to view and that, if WIREdata then redistributed 
the data in mass to any other company, WIREdata would have to 
charge that company for Pelkey's fee on top of any charges that 
WIREdata assessed to that company for the data.  Pelkey stated, 
"Assuming you want all the data we can give you, the total cost 
will be substantially less than the cost of getting the data on 
paper, since each property [report] takes a minimum of 4 pages 
to print." 
¶17 On May 21, 2001, WIREdata's attorney wrote Sussex's 
counsel 
a 
letter 
that 
declared 
Pelkey's 
response 
to 
be 
unacceptable.  In this letter, WIREdata's attorney asserted that 
the assessor was requesting far more than the actual and 
necessary costs for reproducing the requested data.  WIREdata's 
attorney also challenged Pelkey's attempt to restrict WIREdata's 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
13 
 
use of the data beyond its subscribers after the data was 
transferred. 
¶18 The next day, on May 22, 2001, Sussex's counsel sent 
Grota a letter that asked him to explain how the costs and the 
fees in Pelkey's e-mail could be justified as being the 
"'actual, necessary and direct costs'" to produce the requested 
data in the "enhanced" format.  Sussex's counsel further wrote 
that, if Grota was unable to justify the costs, Sussex's counsel 
might make a recommendation to Sussex that was different than 
the position that Pelkey's letter had taken.  Sussex's counsel 
concluded by stating, "I believe that the Village of Sussex is 
not willing to go to litigation in order to protect your private 
interests, particularly if they conflict with the public records 
laws." 
¶19 In a letter dated May 25, 2001, Pelkey explained the 
expenses.  Pelkey stated that, although the Market Drive 
software had the ability to export a property record card into a 
text file, each property record must be exported one at a time, 
which would be highly labor intensive.  Pelkey further explained 
that the software did not have the ability to export data into a 
comma delimited record format.  Pelkey also reiterated that 
Assessment 
Technologies 
had 
granted 
Grota 
Appraisals 
the 
authority to give Sussex a copy of Market Drive's database for 
its internal use only, and, as a result, Sussex was without the 
authority to further distribute the database.  Finally, Pelkey 
asserted that WIREdata's "enhanced" request was not an open 
records 
law 
request 
because 
WIREdata 
had 
requested 
that 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
14 
 
Assessment Technologies, which was a public company and not a 
municipal 
government, 
perform 
a 
data 
gathering 
task 
for 
WIREdata.  Pelkey noted that WIREdata's "enhanced" request went 
beyond a simple open records request to include: (1) the 
collection of assessment data from many municipalities after 
each municipality convened its board of review; (2) the 
conversion of that data into a specific electronic format that 
was specified by WIREdata; and (3) the provision of annual 
updates to the requested information in the requested "enhanced" 
format (for which only a 15 cent per parcel fee would be 
applied). 
¶20 On May 29, 2001, Sussex's counsel wrote WIREdata's 
attorney a letter advising WIREdata that an effort was being 
made to promptly respond to the company's request.  This letter 
also stated that Sussex would not become involved with any 
aspect of the issue that may involve a business transaction 
between WIREdata and Grota beyond fulfilling the core open 
records law request.  The letter continued by stating that 
Sussex's interest was limited to ensuring that the open records 
law was followed. 
¶21 On June 8, 2001, WIREdata filed a mandamus action in 
the Waukesha County Circuit Court against Sussex, Grota, and 
Grota Appraisals.  Later, WIREdata amended its complaint to 
include Assessment Technologies as well. 
¶22 On June 20, 2001, Grota provided an estimate to 
Sussex's counsel that included the estimated charges to provide 
just a "digital property record card" for each of the 2,685 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
15 
 
parcels on Sussex's assessment roll.  Apparently, this estimate 
included a digital output for the requested data, but it is not 
clear if this estimate was for the exact "enhanced" output 
format, including the provision of annual updates, that WIREdata 
desired, which may explain the differences in the quoted fees 
between the first and the second estimates.  Grota stated that 
processing each record would take two minutes to complete, for a 
total of 5,370 minutes or 89.5 hours.  The relevant "billing 
rate for someone capable with the proper training to complete 
this function is $35.00 per hour.  Therefore[,] it would cost 
approximately $3,132 for [the] completion of this task."  The 
estimate included all media that was necessary for data 
distribution.  The letter from Grota to Sussex's counsel 
concluded by stating, "Please let me know of Wire Data's [sic] 
decision to proceed so we can schedule the time necessary for 
completion."  On June 25, 2001, Sussex's counsel conveyed this 
information to Sussex's village administrator and asked him to 
pass the information on to WIREdata on official village 
letterhead.  It is important to note that this communication was 
from Sussex to WIREdata and that WIREdata never made the 
"enhanced" request to Sussex directly. 
¶23 In August 
2001, Assessment Technologies filed a 
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Wisconsin seeking an injunction to prohibit WIREdata 
from infringing on its copyrights for the Market Drive software, 
and its resulting digital database compilations.  In December 
2002, that court held that Assessment Technologies owned the 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
16 
 
relevant copyright, which protected the company in regards to 
the Market Drive software and its entire derivative works.  As a 
result, that court was satisfied that Assessment Technologies 
could decide whether or not to produce a derivate work of the 
Market Drive software, which was what that court felt WIREdata 
was requesting. 
¶24 The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 
Circuit reversed the district court's decision.  See Assessment 
Techs. of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc., 350 F.3d 640, 648 (7th Cir. 
2003).  The Seventh Circuit held that extracting the raw data 
that WIREdata sought from the Market Drive software's database 
did not violate federal copyright law.  Id. at 644.  The court 
was satisfied that Assessment Technologies had not created the 
database that it was trying to keep from WIREdata.  Id. at 646.  
The court was further satisfied that Assessment Technologies had 
created only an empty database, which was a bin that the 
assessors were hired by the municipalities to fill with data.  
Id.  Assessment Technologies had created the bin's compartments 
and the instructions that the software used to sort the data 
into the compartments, which the court held were the only 
innovations that were protected by copyright law.  Id.  The 
Seventh Circuit held that Assessment Technologies did not have 
an ownership interest, or any other legal interest, in the data 
that the assessors had collected.  Id.  The court held that the 
raw data was in the public domain, so Assessment Technologies 
could not make its acquisition by WIREdata more costly.  Id. at 
645.  The Seventh Circuit stated that there was no copyright 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
17 
 
restriction on WIREdata receiving a simple, electronic copy of 
the database.7  As the petitioners aptly noted in their petition 
for review to this court, the Seventh Circuit was presented only 
with copyright issues under federal law, and the case before us 
involves different issues. 
¶25 After the release of the federal appellate court's 
decision, Grota sent the requested data on Sussex's property 
records to WIREdata in an electronic and digital format, a PDF 
format.  Again, WIREdata was not satisfied with the format of 
the data.  The record reflects that, for all three state court 
actions, the parties in the federal court action had agreed to a 
"stand-still agreement" in the pending state court actions until 
the conclusion of the federal action. 
                                                 
7 In its opinion, the Seventh Circuit stated: 
To summarize, there are at least four possible methods 
by which WIRE data [sic] can obtain the data it is 
seeking without infringing AT's copyright; which one 
is selected is for the municipality to decide in light 
of 
applicable 
trade-secret, 
open-records, 
and 
contracts 
laws. 
 
The 
methods 
are: 
(1) 
the 
municipalities use Market Drive to extract the data 
and place it in an electronic file; (2) they use 
Microsoft Access to create an electronic file of the 
data; (3) they allow programmers furnished by WIREdata 
to use their computers to extract the data from their 
database——this 
is really just an alternative to 
WIREdata's 
paying 
the 
municipalities' 
costs 
of 
extraction, 
which 
the 
open-records 
law 
requires;    
(4) they copy the database file and give it to 
WIREdata to extract the data from. 
Assessment Techs. of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc., 350 F.3d 
640, 647-48 (7th Cir. 2003). 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
18 
 
¶26 After the Seventh Circuit's decision was rendered on 
November 25, 2003, all parties moved for summary judgment in the 
pending mandamus action in the Waukesha County Circuit Court.  
The circuit court granted WIREdata's summary judgment motion but 
denied WIREdata's request for punitive damages on May 20, 2005.  
The circuit court held that there could be multiple authorities 
under the open records law, and that Sussex, Grota, Grota 
Appraisals, and Assessment Technologies were all authorities 
under the law.  The circuit court also held that WIREdata's 
request was in the format required by the open records law and 
would not necessitate the creation of a new record.  The circuit 
court determined that a proper response to WIREdata's request 
had not been provided.  The circuit court also held that the 
provision of the PDF file with the requested data did not comply 
with either the Seventh Circuit's decision or the open records 
law. 
 
B.  The Thiensville action in the Ozaukee County Circuit Court 
¶27 In October 1999, Thiensville contracted with Grota 
Appraisals to maintain its assessment records for the period 
between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2001.  A computer that 
was loaded with the Market Drive software was kept at the 
Thiensville Village Hall.  This computer's Market Drive software 
provided read-only access to the database,8 and it allowed for 
the printing of assessment reports in hard copy only. 
                                                 
8 Apparently, Thiensville could not input data on its own, 
manipulate the data, format the data, or make any changes to the 
data. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
19 
 
¶28 On April 20, 2001, WIREdata made a written open 
records law request to Thiensville.  In this request (the 
"initial" request), WIREdata asked for the following: 
[A]n electronic/digital copy of the detailed real 
estate 
property 
records 
(showing 
the 
specific 
characteristics of each parcel and the improvements 
thereupon) used and/or maintained by the Assessor in 
determining the proper assessments for each parcel 
within the Village of Thiensville. 
However, WIREdata wanted to be advised in writing of any costs 
that were associated with fulfilling its request before the 
municipality incurred the costs.  The village forwarded the 
request to Grota Appraisals and informed WIREdata that it had 
done so. 
¶29 Only four days later, on April 24, 2001, WIREdata's 
attorney sent Thiensville's counsel a letter that was nearly 
identical to the letter that WIREdata's attorney had sent to 
Sussex's counsel on the very same day.  In this letter, WIREdata 
threatened Thiensville with a mandamus action if the village 
denied its open records request.  Even though no previous 
transactions between the parties were reflected in the record 
before us, the letter to Thiensville's counsel from WIREdata's 
attorney 
boldly 
stated, 
"Based 
on 
the 
history 
of 
your 
governmental officials, I suspect that they may be giving some 
thought to denying my client's requests."  The letter then 
continued by stating: 
 
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that if 
the request is denied in whole or in part or if the 
Municipality tries to charge an amount which is not 
the actual and direct cost of the copying, we will be 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
20 
 
seeking 
immediate 
relief 
via 
a 
mandamus 
action 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37. 
The letter further stated, "I am also concerned that your client 
may 
try 
to 
become 
'creative' 
in 
ascertaining 
the 
costs 
involved."  The letter continued by stating that, if WIREdata 
was "forced to start a mandamus action, [WIREdata] will also be 
seeking 
reimbursement 
of 
attorney 
fees." 
 
All 
of 
these 
statements mirrored WIREdata's letter to Sussex's counsel, which 
was sent on the very same day.  Indeed, the letters from 
WIREdata's attorney to Thiensville and to Sussex were virtually 
identical. 
¶30 On May 30, 2001,9 WIREdata filed a mandamus action in 
the Ozaukee County Circuit Court against Thiensville, Grota 
Appraisals, and Grota.  WIREdata later amended its complaint to 
include Assessment Technologies as well.  On June 4, 2001, 
Thiensville's counsel wrote to WIREdata to inform the company 
that Thiensville officials were reviewing systems issues and 
were attempting to comply with WIREdata's "initial" request. 
¶31 On June 29, 2001, after the mandamus action was filed, 
Thiensville's village administrator sent WIREdata a letter in an 
attempt to resolve the action that was similar to the one Sussex 
sent to WIREdata.  The letter reiterated that the village had 
been willing all along to provide WIREdata "with hard copies [in 
written form] of all available records" and also stated that the 
village "was in the process of evaluating its appraiser's 
                                                 
9 While the complaint was dated May 24, 2001, it was not 
filed with and stamped by the circuit court until May 30, 2001. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
21 
 
software capabilities" when WIREdata filed the mandamus action.  
That letter also attached a letter from Grota Appraisals that 
offered to export electronically individual property records 
from the Market Drive software in the same manner it had 
proposed for Sussex.  Grota's letter attached a copy of the 
Sussex letter for reference.  Once again, we note that the 
parties in the federal court action had agreed to a "stand-
still" agreement in the pending state court actions until the 
federal action was completed. 
¶32 After the Seventh Circuit rendered its decision on 
November 25, 2003, Pelkey sent WIREdata a PDF file that 
contained Thiensville's property records data.  Thiensville, 
Grota Appraisals, Grota, Assessment Technologies, and WIREdata 
had all previously filed summary judgment motions, which were 
substantially similar to the ones they filed in the Sussex 
action. 
¶33 The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of 
Thiensville, the Village of Thiensville Custodian of Records,10 
Grota, Grota Appraisals, and Assessment Technologies on May 30, 
2003.  The circuit court also imposed costs on WIREdata.  In its 
oral decision, the circuit court held that Thiensville was an 
authority under the open records law, one that had delegated its 
responsibility for maintaining the relevant records to another 
custodian.  The circuit court also held that WIREdata's 
"initial" request did not satisfy the open record law's 
                                                 
10 This was a fictional party that WIREdata had included. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
22 
 
requirement of being reasonable in scope, and that WIREdata's 
later "enhanced" request was improperly directed to Pelkey and 
not to Thiensville.  The circuit court further determined that 
the PDF was an electronic and digital file, which is what 
WIREdata had requested in its "initial" request. 
 
C.  The Port Washington action in the Ozaukee County Circuit 
Court 
¶34 In November 2000, Port Washington entered into a 
contract with Matthies Assessments to perform its official 
assessments for the 2001 calendar year.  Matthies Assessments 
had a pre-existing licensing and purchase agreement with 
Assessment Technologies to utilize the Market Drive Software. 
¶35 On April 25, 2001, WIREdata sent Port Washington's 
treasurer a letter indicating that the company would be sending 
a letter requesting property data to Matthies Assessments.  
WIREdata described its request (the "initial" request) as being 
for "detailed property information or assessor information such 
as square footage, age, number of bedrooms, number of baths, 
property class, etc."  WIREdata also stated that the company was 
"interested in the sales data, such as the sale date, sale 
price, 
if 
available, 
transfer 
fee, 
[and] 
type 
of         
transfer . . . ."  WIREdata also asked Port Washington to 
include in the data it produced the number of parcels, a record 
layout that was current, a copy of the current property record 
card it was using, and ten randomly selected data sheets.  
Furthermore, WIREdata wanted "to know when the last complete 
revaluation or reassessment was done and when the next complete 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
23 
 
revaluation is scheduled."  WIREdata concluded its letter by 
asking Port Washington's treasurer to contact the company to 
discuss the approximate cost to reproduce the data and the media 
type in which the data would be reproduced.  Importantly, 
WIREdata's "initial" request to Port Washington did not specify 
any particular format whatsoever for the requested data's 
delivery. 
¶36 On May 4, 2001, Port Washington's treasurer sent a 
letter to WIREdata asking the company to request the data and 
its associated charges directly from Matthies Assessments.  Port 
Washington's treasurer signed a release allowing Matthies 
Assessments to release the relevant property information to 
WIREdata.  As a result, on May 9, 2001, WIREdata sent a letter 
that was almost identical to the one it sent Port Washington's 
treasurer to Ernest Matthies (Matthies) of Matthies Assessments 
(essentially, another "initial" request). 
¶37 On May 22, 2001, Matthies sent WIREdata a response to 
its May 9 letter.  In his response, Matthies stated he assumed 
that WIREdata was "requesting a copy of the assessment data base 
used to store assessment data for the City of Port Washington."  
Matthies 
further 
informed 
WIREdata 
that 
he 
had 
recently 
completed the process of putting Port Washington's data "on a 
new assessment software system called 'Market Drive'. . . ."  
Matthies also conveyed to WIREdata that he had spoken with 
Grota, who had informed Matthies that the license and purchase 
agreement 
that 
Matthies 
Assessments 
had 
with 
Assessment 
Technologies prohibited Matthies Assessments from complying with 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
24 
 
WIREdata's request.  Matthies directed WIREdata to Grota for an 
explanation of the relevant licensing agreement.  However, 
importantly, Matthies specifically stated, "Assessment data 
printouts of individual parcels are available upon request for a 
reasonable fee.  Access to assessment data in this format is 
available to the public upon request."  WIREdata did not request 
any particular format whatsoever for the requested data's 
provision in its "initial" request to Port Washington. 
¶38 On June 12, 2001,11 WIREdata filed a mandamus action 
against both Port Washington and Matthies Assessments in the 
Circuit Court for Ozaukee County.  WIREdata later amended its 
complaint to include Assessment Technologies as well.  After the 
district court's decision in the copyright matter, the circuit 
court started to address the Thiensville and the Port Washington 
cases together.  Once again, we note that the parties in the 
federal court action agreed to a "stand-still" agreement for all 
three 
state 
court 
actions 
until 
the 
federal 
action 
was 
completed. 
¶39 After the Seventh Circuit's decision was rendered on 
November 25, 2003, Pelkey sent WIREdata a PDF that contained the 
requested property records for Port Washington.  The parties all 
had previously filed motions for summary judgment.  The circuit 
court granted the summary judgment motions of Port Washington 
and Matthies Assessment on May 30, 2003.  The circuit court also 
                                                 
11 The complaint was dated June 8, 2001, but the complaint 
was not filed with and stamped by the circuit court until June 
12, 2001. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
25 
 
denied WIREdata's summary judgment motion, and it imposed costs 
against WIREdata for the action. 
 
D.  The court of appeals' decision 
¶40 As previously noted, all of the appeals from the three 
circuit court decisions were considered together on appeal by 
the court of appeals. 
¶41 On January 3, 2007, the court of appeals, in a 
published decision, held that the open records law allowed 
WIREdata the opportunity to access the databases of the 
independent contractor assessors to examine and to copy the 
requested property assessment records.  As a result, the court 
of appeals held that the municipalities had violated the open 
records law when they did not give WIREdata the requested data 
in the "enhanced" request's format and instead provided the data 
to the company in PDFs.  However, the court of appeals only held 
the 
municipalities, 
and 
not 
their 
independent 
contractor 
assessors, liable for the open records law violations.  The 
court of appeals stated that municipalities could not evade 
their duties under the open records law by having independent 
contractor 
assessors 
create 
and 
maintain 
their 
property 
assessment records.  The court of appeals also rejected "all 
challenges to the sufficiency of the open records requests and 
[to] the existence of the denials of those requests."  WIREdata, 
Inc., 298 Wis. 2d 743, ¶2. 
¶42 As a result, the court of appeals, in the Sussex 
action, affirmed the Circuit Court of Waukesha County to the 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
26 
 
extent that the circuit court held that: (1) Sussex was an 
authority and was responsible for the relevant violations of the 
open records law; (2) WIREdata had submitted a valid request 
under the open records law that Sussex had improperly denied;  
(3) the PDF did not comply with the open records law's 
requirements; (4) the open records law required that WIREdata be 
given access to the Market Drive software's computerized 
database; and (5) WIREdata was entitled to receive its actual, 
reasonable, and customary fees and costs.  However, the court of 
appeals, in the Sussex action, reversed the circuit court's 
holding that 
Sussex's independent contractor assessor was 
responsible for paying WIREdata's reasonable costs and attorneys 
fees.  Finally, the court of appeals remanded the Sussex action 
to 
the 
circuit 
court 
for 
proceedings 
to 
determine 
the 
appropriate costs and fees to be awarded to WIREdata. 
¶43 In the combined Thiensville and Port Washington 
actions, the court of appeals affirmed the Circuit Court for 
Ozaukee County to the extent that it had held that Port 
Washington and Thiensville were authorities under the open 
records law.  However, the court of appeals reversed the circuit 
court to the extent that it had held that WIREdata's requests 
were insufficient under the open records law, and to the extent 
that the circuit court had held "that the PDF satisfied 
[WIREdata's] requests in any event."  Id., ¶3.  Finally, the 
court of appeals remanded the combined Thiensville and Port 
Washington actions to the circuit court for proceedings to 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
27 
 
determine what were the appropriate costs and fees to be awarded 
to WIREdata. 
II 
¶44 These cases are before us on review in regard to 
summary judgment motions, which were decided by the circuit 
courts.  We review a circuit court's grant or denial of a 
summary judgment motion de novo and independently of either the 
circuit court or the court of appeals; however, we apply the 
same methodology and benefit from their analyses.  AKG Real 
Estate, LLC v. Kosterman, 2006 WI 106, ¶14, 296 Wis. 2d 1, 717 
N.W.2d 835.  We must determine whether the complaint states an 
actionable claim.  Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 
304, 315-17, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987).  Summary judgment is only 
appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact, and 
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  
Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2).  Summary judgment materials, including 
pleadings, 
depositions, 
answers 
to 
interrogatories, 
and 
admissions on file are viewed in the light most favorable to the 
nonmoving party.  Rainbow Country Rentals v. Ameritech Publ'g, 
2005 WI 153, ¶13, 286 Wis. 2d 170, 706 N.W.2d 95. 
¶45 The interpretation and application of a statute, such 
as the open records law, to undisputed facts presents a question 
of law that we review de novo.  Osborn v. Bd. of Regents of the 
Univ. of Wis. Sys., 2002 WI 83, ¶12, 254 Wis. 2d 266, 647 N.W.2d 
158.  However, we benefit from the analyses of both the circuit 
court and the court of appeals.  Id.  
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
28 
 
 
III 
¶46 The first issue on review is whether WIREdata properly 
commenced the mandamus actions against the municipalities under 
the open records law, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1), when 
the municipalities had not denied WIREdata's requests for the 
records before WIREdata filed the mandamus actions. 
¶47 On review, the petitioners and the cross-petitioners 
claim that the municipalities did not deny WIREdata's requests 
for records and, accordingly, that a mandamus action was 
improper.  They note that the relevant statute does not provide 
a concrete time frame for a response to an open records request.  
The petitioners and the cross-petitioners argue that, in cases 
such as this one where the requests are complex, municipalities 
should be afforded latitude in regard to the time frame for 
their response.  They argue that the municipalities acted 
promptly and appropriately given the circumstances.  Grota 
further argues that Pelkey's communications may not be deemed to 
be either a denial or a delaying of the requests because Pelkey 
was neither an authority nor a proper recipient of the requests.  
Finally, the petitioners and the cross-petitioners argue that 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
erred 
by 
determining 
that 
the 
municipalities delayed too long in responding to the requests. 
¶48 On review, WIREdata argues that, even though the 
municipalities did not issue any express denials to the 
company's 
requests, 
the 
municipalities 
failed 
to 
respond 
adequately to those requests.  WIREdata cites three court of 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
29 
 
appeals cases12 in support of its assertion that the relevant 
statute requires either a grant or a denial of an open records 
request, and WIREdata argues that the municipalities did 
neither. 
 
However, 
WIREdata 
also 
asserts 
that 
Pelkey's 
communications made it clear that the requests were denied. 
¶49 For the reasons discussed in detail below, based on 
the facts of the present case, we hold that WIREdata did not 
properly 
commence 
the 
mandamus 
actions 
against 
the 
municipalities under the open records law, pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 19.37(1), because the municipalities had not denied 
WIREdata's requests for the records before WIREdata filed the 
mandamus actions. 
¶50 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.35(4)(a) requires an authority, 
upon a request for any record, to "as soon as practicable and 
without delay, either fill the request or notify the requester 
of the authority's determination to deny the request in whole or 
in part and the reasons therefor."  Wisconsin Stat. § 19.37(1), 
in relevant part, provides that, "[i]f an authority withholds a 
record or a part of a record or delays granting access to a 
record or part of a record after a written request for 
disclosure is made, the requester may pursue . . ." a cause of 
"action for mandamus asking a court to order [the] release of 
the record."  Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1)(a). 
                                                 
12  State ex rel. Blum v. Bd. of Educ., 209 Wis. 2d 377, 565 
N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1997); WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 
452, 555 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1996); Oshkosh Nw. Co. v. Oshkosh 
Library Bd., 125 Wis. 2d 480, 373 N.W.2d 459 (Ct. App. 1985). 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
30 
 
¶51 It is important to note that WIREdata admitted in its 
brief to this court that Grota was always willing to supply 
copies in written form of the requested information for each of 
the three municipalities.  The record also reflects that the 
municipalities offered WIREdata printouts in written form of the 
relevant property records in a timely manner, but WIREdata 
refused these offers.  Grota's attorney stated at oral argument 
before this court that the full records, in written form, were 
offered to WIREdata within weeks of the company's requests.  
When pressed for a more specific time frame, the attorney stated 
that, to the best of his recollection, the records for Sussex, 
in written form, were provided to WIREdata approximately two 
weeks after the company's request to Sussex.  As a result, we 
are satisfied that the municipalities allowed WIREdata to 
receive copies of the relevant records, which appeared in 
written form, for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(b). 
¶52 Contrary 
to 
WIREdata's 
arguments, 
the 
court 
of 
appeals' 
decision 
in 
Oshkosh 
Northwest 
Co. 
(Oshkosh) 
is 
factually distinguishable from the present case because the 
authority in Oshkosh denied the requester access to the 
requested records, whereas the municipalities in the present 
case did not deny WIREdata's requests.  Oshkosh Nw. Co. v. 
Oshkosh Library Bd., 125 Wis. 2d 480, 481, 373 N.W.2d 459 (Ct. 
App. 1985).  We further note that, contrary to WIREdata's 
assertions, Blum is not persuasive in deciding this issue, 
because Blum presented a very different situation, one where the 
court of appeals held that a school district had properly 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
31 
 
refused to produce the interim per-class grades of another 
student to the requesting student.  State ex rel. Blum v. Bd. of 
Educ., 209 Wis. 2d 377, 385-86, 565 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1997). 
¶53 We are further satisfied that the court of appeals' 
decision in WTMJ, Inc. (WTMJ) does not compel a different result 
on this issue.  WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 455, 
555 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1996).  In WTMJ, a Milwaukee TV 
station, WTMJ, requested certain records in regard to Jeffrey 
Dahmer and Jesse Anderson.  Id.  These two men were killed while 
both were inmates at the Columbia Correctional Institution.  Id.  
The record custodian for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections 
(DOC) replied to WTMJ that the two sets of files would "'not be 
made available to you for your inspection at this time at the 
request of the Columbia County District Attorney's office and 
the Columbia County Sheriff's office.  Once the criminal 
investigation is completed[,] redacted copies of the records 
will be made available for inspection.'"  Id. at 455-56.  In 
March 1994, a redacted copy of Jeffrey Dahmer's institutional 
file was provided to the Milwaukee Journal, and the custodian 
told WTMJ that the station "was entitled to copies of that 
file."  Id. at 456.  However, the custodian stated, "'As noted 
above, you cannot review any of Mr. Dahmer's file from March, 
1994, 
to 
[the 
present] 
date 
until 
the 
investigation 
is 
completed.'"  Id. 
¶54 WTMJ filed a mandamus action to obtain the records it 
requested.  Id.  However, WTMJ's entitlement to the records was 
never litigated because "the State soon agreed to provide the 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
32 
 
requested records, with two insignificant exceptions[,] which 
WTMJ [did] not contest."  Id.  WTMJ requested its attorneys' 
fees, because WTMJ argued that it had prevailed in the mandamus 
action, but the DOC disagreed "because it believed that it had 
in good faith released the records of its own volition."  Id.  
In upholding the awarding of attorneys' fees, the court of 
appeals held that, contrary to the DOC's assertion, the DOC's 
original response that it would release the records after the 
criminal investigation was completed was a denial.  Id. at 457.  
The court of appeals stated, "The words 'will not be made 
available to you at this time' and 'you cannot review' are not 
words associated with [an] acceptance of WTMJ's demand for 
records."  Id.  The court of appeals further stated, "We do not 
believe that the DOC's qualification that some of the records 
would be released when an investigation was completed [was] 
sufficient to change the December 1 letter from a denial to an 
agreement to produce.  The letter did not indicate when the 
investigation would terminate."  Id.  The court of appeals held 
that there were two statutory choices, which were "comply or 
deny."  Id., citing State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of 
LaGrange, 200 Wis. 2d 585, 597, 547 N.W.2d 587 (1996) (holding 
that a requesting party may immediately bring an enforcement 
action if an open records law request is denied and that such 
actions are exempt from the notice provisions of Wis. Stat. 
§ 893.80(1)). 
¶55 We are satisfied that, under the circumstances here, 
there were not any denials by the relevant authorities, the 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
33 
 
municipalities, 
of 
WIREdata's 
requests. 
 
This 
case 
is 
distinguishable because, in the present case, unlike the 
custodian in WTMJ, the municipalities were diligently working 
toward ascertaining the technical and legal requirements of 
producing the records.  WTMJ, Inc., 204 Wis. 2d at 457.  
Furthermore, the municipalities in the present case did not deny 
WIREdata access to the requested records "'at this time'" and 
also did not tell WIREdata that "'you cannot review'" the 
requested records.  Id.  The municipalities in the present case 
also did not state that the requested records would only be 
released after the completion of an investigation without a 
certain termination date.  Id.  That was a response that the 
court of appeals in WTMJ found persuasive in calling the DOC's 
actions in that case a denial.  Id.  Furthermore, the 
municipalities here offered WIREdata paper copies of the 
requested records as an alternative, which is yet another reason 
for our determination that there was no denial in the present 
case, 
especially 
when 
compared 
to 
the 
facts 
of 
WTMJ.13  
Furthermore, as previously noted, all of the parties in the 
federal court action agreed to a "stand-still" agreement for the 
state 
court 
actions 
until 
the 
federal 
copyright 
action 
concluded.  The record reflects that WIREdata received the 
                                                 
13 We note that the municipalities' offers of paper copies 
of the requested records demonstrated a good faith effort on the 
municipalities' part to provide WIREdata with the requested 
information quickly.  We do not decide whether such paper copies 
would actually satisfy WIREdata's request. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
34 
 
requested data in PDFs shortly after the conclusion of the 
federal action. 
¶56 We are satisfied that, in cases such as these where 
the requests are complex, municipalities should be afforded 
reasonable latitude in the time frame for their responses.  In 
its amicus brief, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) 
appropriately expressed a concern that the court of appeals' 
opinion could be construed as allowing a mandamus action, even 
where municipalities were acting diligently in attempting to 
respond in a timely manner to requests under the open records 
law.  As the DOJ stated, "An authority should not be subjected 
to the burden and expense of a premature public records lawsuit 
while it is attempting in good faith to respond, or to determine 
how to respond, to a public records request."  We further concur 
with the DOJ's opinion that what constitutes a reasonable time 
for a response by an authority "depends on the nature of the 
request, the staff and other resources available to the 
authority to process the request, the extent of the request, and 
other 
related 
considerations." 
 
Accordingly, 
whether 
an 
authority is acting with reasonable diligence in a particular 
case will depend upon the totality of the circumstances 
surrounding the particular request. 
¶57 We further agree with the petitioners and the cross-
petitioners that the municipalities acted promptly given the 
circumstances of this case.  The record reflects that questions 
on the "enhanced" format that WIREdata desired the data to be 
produced in were still going back and forth in May of 2001, 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
35 
 
which was several weeks after WIREdata made its initial request.  
This shows that the municipalities were still attempting in good 
faith to comply with the difficult logistical and legal aspects 
of WIREdata's complex and large "enhanced" requests at that 
time. 
¶58 We are satisfied that the municipalities, as the 
authorities under the open records law, acted reasonably in the 
present case.  The open records law, specifically Wis. Stat. 
§ 19.35(4)(a), requires an authority to either comply with or 
deny a request "as soon as practicable."  Here, WIREdata filed 
the mandamus actions without first giving the municipalities an 
appropriate amount of time to comply with its requests, 
especially given all of the complex copyright and licensing 
issues, and given the large volume of data requested.  Here, 
WIREdata threatened both Sussex and Thiensville with mandamus 
actions only four days after the company's "initial" requests.  
Furthermore, 
WIREdata 
filed 
the 
mandamus 
actions 
shortly 
thereafter and despite the communications WIREdata had received 
from the municipalities that they were attempting to work 
through the complex issues to provide the requested data.  
Additionally, 
the 
record reflects that the municipalities 
offered to provide WIREdata with paper copies of the requested 
information, which WIREdata turned down.  As a result of the 
foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the mandamus actions 
in the present case were filed prematurely. 
¶59 In summary, based on the facts of the present case, we 
hold that WIREdata did not properly commence the mandamus 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
36 
 
actions against the municipalities under the open records law, 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1), because the municipalities 
had not denied WIREdata's requests for the records before 
WIREdata filed the mandamus actions. 
IV 
¶60 The second issue on review is whether WIREdata's 
initial written requests were insufficient as a matter of law as 
to time and subject matter. 
¶61 On review, the petitioners and the cross-petitioners 
claim that WIREdata's initial written requests were insufficient 
as a matter of law, because WIREdata did not properly define the 
time and subject matter limitations on its requests.  The 
petitioners and the cross-petitioners argue that, under Wis. 
Stat. § 19.35(1)(h), WIREdata's requests were too broad to be 
valid because the requests contained no such limitations. 
¶62 On review, WIREdata argues that the municipalities did 
not assert, as a reason for denying the company's requests, that 
WIREdata's requests were too broad.  As a result, WIREdata 
argues that the petitioners and the cross-petitioners waived 
this argument because the alleged denials were based on 
copyright 
issues, 
not 
on 
claims 
that 
the 
requests 
were 
overbroad.  Furthermore, WIREdata argues that its requests must 
have been understood because Pelkey was able to set up a pricing 
structure for the provision of the "enhanced" data in his May 
28, 2001 letter.  WIREdata further contends that the requests 
were sufficient on their face.  Finally, WIREdata argues that 
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h) does not require a requester to include 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
37 
 
a precise list of the desired data or a precise limitation as to 
the time frame. 
¶63 For the reasons discussed in detail herein, we 
conclude that WIREdata's initial written requests were not 
insufficient as a matter of law in regard to subject matter and 
length of time. 
¶64 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 19.35(1)(h), 
in 
relevant 
part, 
provides that a request "is deemed sufficient if it reasonably 
describes the requested record or the information requested.  
However, a request for a record without a reasonable limitation 
as to subject matter or length of time represented by the record 
does not constitute a sufficient request." 
¶65 In Schopper, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit 
court's order that dismissed the complaint of Allan Schopper 
(Schopper).  Schopper v. Gehring, 210 Wis. 2d 208, 210, 565 
N.W.2d 187 (Ct. App. 1997).  Schopper had appealed the denial of 
his request, which had been made under the open records law, "to 
obtain a three-hour interval of 911 calls recorded by the 
Outagamie County Sheriff's Department on November 29, 1995."  
Id.  The court of appeals agreed with the circuit court's 
determination that Schopper's request was impermissibly broad 
because his "request lacked a reasonable limitation as to the 
subject and length of time for the records requested."  Id. 
¶66 Schopper had been arrested for a traffic violation on 
the night for which he requested the 911 calls.  Id.  The 
sheriff responded to Schopper's request by stating that 911 
calls were recorded on 60 channels and that, as a result, 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
38 
 
"Schopper's request was too broad and that he would have to 
narrow or clarify the scope of his request before it could be 
acted upon."  Id. at 211.  Schopper never modified his request 
to include either a specific event or a specific time frame as 
requested, and, when the sheriff's department did not provide 
him with the requested information, Schopper filed a mandamus 
action.  Id.  Because Schopper's request included three hours of 
tape on each of the department's 60 channels that were allocated 
to 911 calls, plus the preparation of a transcript for each of 
these tapes and a log to identify the time of each transmission, 
the circuit court "determined that the request was unreasonably 
burdensome as well as overbroad and ordered the complaint 
dismissed."  Id. at 212. 
¶67 The court of appeals stated, "While this state favors 
the opening of public records to public scrutiny, we may not in 
furtherance of this policy create a system that would so burden 
the records custodian that the normal functioning of the office 
would be severely impaired."  Id. at 213.  That court was 
satisfied that "Schopper's request was far in excess of that 
which was necessary for his announced purpose."  Id.  The court 
of appeals held that, because Schopper "could reasonably have 
limited his request but failed to do so, and because the request 
placed an unreasonable burden upon the custodian in preparation 
of the documents necessary to fulfill the request . . .," the 
circuit court did not err in finding Schopper's "request to be 
so over broad as to be inadequate under the open records law."  
Id.  Accordingly, the court of appeals concluded that the 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
39 
 
circuit court had "properly ordered the dismissal of Schopper's 
open record[s]complaint."  Id. 
¶68 We note, as the court of appeals pointed out, that the 
petitioners' and the cross-petitioners' arguments here, on this 
issue, were not raised until quite late in the litigation.  We 
need not consider such after the fact reasons for nondisclosure.  
See Oshkosh Nw. Co., 125 Wis. 2d at 484.  However, we are 
satisfied that WIREdata's requests were not insufficient.  As 
will be discussed in more detail later in this opinion, 
WIREdata's requests were not insufficient as to time and subject 
matter 
because 
the 
municipalities 
were 
able 
to 
fulfill 
WIREdata's requests using the PDFs that were provided to 
WIREdata.  Furthermore, there never appeared to be a dispute 
between the parties, before the court actions commenced, on what 
WIREdata was requesting or on whether the amount of information 
that was being requested was too great to be produced.  Indeed, 
Grota's concerns with WIREdata's requests were primarily based 
on copyright, licensing, and programming issues with the Market 
Drive software. 
¶69 In summary, we conclude that WIREdata's initial 
written requests were not insufficient as a matter of law in 
regard to time and subject matter. 
V 
¶70 The third issue before us is whether a municipality's 
independent contractor assessor is an authority under the open 
records law, so that such an assessor is a proper recipient of 
an open records request. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
40 
 
¶71 On review, the municipalities argue that the court of 
appeals erred when it held that the independent contractor 
assessors were not authorities under the open records law.  The 
municipalities maintain that an "authority" under the open 
records law includes independent contractors who fill statutory 
appointments to local public offices.  The municipalities then 
argue that the open records statutes apply to such authorities.  
In contrast, the independent contractor assessors argue that the 
definition of public office that is set forth in Wis. Stat. 
§ 19.42(7w)(d) controls and defines an "appointive office" as 
expressly excluding "a position filled by an independent 
contractor."  The independent contractor assessors argue that 
this express exclusion carries over to Wis. Stat. § 19.32(1dm).  
However, those assessors also argue that, regardless of the 
independent contractor exclusion in § 19.42(7w)(d), they cannot 
be considered to be filling "public offices" under § 19.32(1dm).  
Furthermore, the assessors assert that, because they are not 
authorities under the open records law, the mandamus actions 
that were filed against them by WIREdata should have been 
dismissed. 
¶72 On review, WIREdata argues that such assessors should 
be deemed to be proper recipients of open records requests 
because to hold otherwise would slow down the process of 
satisfying open records requests.  Furthermore, WIREdata argues 
that Pelkey was acting as an agent for the municipalities. 
¶73 For the reasons discussed in detail below, we are 
satisfied that a municipality's independent contractor assessor 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
41 
 
is not an authority under the open records law, so that such an 
assessor is not a proper recipient of an open records request. 
¶74 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.32(1), in relevant part, states, 
"'Authority' means any of the following having custody of a 
record: a state or local office, elected official, agency, 
board, commission, committee, council, department or public body 
corporate and politic created by constitution, law, ordinance, 
rule or order; . . . or a formally constituted subunit of any of 
the foregoing."  This statute clearly envisions a public entity, 
a quasi-governmental corporation, or a governmental entity, not 
an independent contractor hired by such a public or governmental 
entity, as being the "authority" for purposes of the open 
records law. 
¶75 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.32(1dm)14 states, "'Local public 
office' has the meaning given in s. 19.42(7w), and also includes 
any appointive office or position of a local governmental unit 
in which an individual serves as the head of a department, 
agency, or division of the local governmental unit," but that 
statute "does not include any office or position filled by a 
municipal 
employee, 
as 
defined 
in 
s. 
111.70(1)(i)."  
Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 19.42(7w) reads, in relevant part, as 
follows: 
                                                 
14 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.32(1dm) was added to the Wisconsin 
statutes in 2003, and its text has remained unchanged since that 
time. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
42 
 
"Local public office" means any of the following 
offices, except an office specified in sub. (13):15 
(a) An elective office of a local governmental unit. 
(b) 
A 
county 
administrator 
or 
administrative 
coordinator or a city or village manager. 
(c) An appointive office or position of a local 
governmental unit in which an individual serves for a 
specified term, except a position limited to the 
exercise of ministerial action or a position filled by 
an independent contractor. 
. . . . 
(d) An appointive office or position of a local 
government which is filled by the governing body of 
the 
local 
government 
or 
the 
executive 
or 
administrative head of the local government and in 
which the incumbent serves at the pleasure of the 
appointing authority, except a clerical position, a 
position limited to the exercise of ministerial action 
or a position filled by an independent contractor. 
(Emphasis added.)  We are satisfied that this statute clearly 
envisions a public or governmental entity, not an independent 
contractor hired by the public or governmental entity, as being 
the "authority" for purposes of the open records law.  Indeed, 
as noted, Wis. Stat. § 19.42(7w)(c)-(d) excludes from the 
definition of "Local public office" any "position filled by an 
independent contractor."  While Wis. Stat. § 61.197(1)(f) allows 
villages to appoint an independent contractor to be the village 
assessor, and while Wis. Stat. § 62.09(1)(c) allows cities to 
appoint an independent contractor to be the city assessor, 
nothing in either of those statutes changes or modifies the 
                                                 
15 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 19.42(13) 
defines 
"State 
public 
office[,]" which is not relevant to the present case. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
43 
 
language 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 19.32(1dm) 
or 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 19.42(7w)(c)-(d). 
¶76 The definition of local public office that is set 
forth in Wis. Stat. § 19.42(7w)(c)-(d) controls and defines an 
"appointive office" as expressly excluding "a position filled by 
an independent contractor."  We are satisfied that this express 
exclusion carries over to Wis. Stat. § 19.32(1dm) because of the 
specific cross-reference in § 19.32(1dm) to § 19.42.  However, 
regardless 
of 
the 
independent 
contractor 
exclusion 
in 
§ 19.42(7w)(c)-(d), the independent contractor assessors do not 
hold a local public office under § 19.32(1dm) for another 
reason, which is that an independent contractor assessor does 
not serve "as the head of a department, agency, or division of 
the local governmental unit . . . ." 
¶77 We hold that, here, the municipalities themselves were 
the "authorities" for purposes of the open records law.  
Accordingly, only the municipalities were proper recipients, 
here, of the relevant open records requests.  As such, a 
communication from an independent contractor assessor should not 
be construed as a denial of an open records request. 
¶78 In summary, we are satisfied that a municipality's 
independent contractor assessor is not an authority under the 
open records law, so that such an assessor is not a proper 
recipient of an open records request. 
VI 
¶79 The fourth issue on review is whether a municipality 
may avoid liability under the open records law by contracting 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
44 
 
with an independent contractor assessor for the collection, 
maintenance, and custody of its property assessment records, and 
by then directing any requester of those records to such an 
assessor. 
¶80 On review, the municipalities argue that independent 
contractor assessors are authorities who can be held liable 
under the open records law in lieu of the municipalities.  The 
municipalities further claim that the contractor exception in 
Wis. Stat. § 19.36(3) does not apply to the present case because 
the contract here was between two authorities.  Furthermore, the 
municipalities argue that, just because a contract exists 
between a municipality and an independent contractor assessor, 
this does not mean that a municipality can order such an 
assessor to turn over the relevant database.  In contrast, the 
assessors argue that municipalities may not transfer their legal 
status as authorities to such assessors by outsourcing data 
collection.  The assessors also argue that the municipalities 
need not physically have custody of the requested records to be 
the proper party to a mandamus action. 
¶81 On this issue, WIREdata argues that the independent 
contractor assessors are not authorities under the open records 
law.  WIREdata proffers that the municipalities are the only 
authorities in the present cases.  WIREdata argues that Wis. 
Stat. § 19.36(3) holds authorities liable for the failure to 
make records available that were produced or collected under a 
contract. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
45 
 
¶82 For the reasons discussed in detail herein, we hold 
that the municipalities here may not avoid liability under the 
open records law by contracting with independent contractor 
assessors for the collection, maintenance, and custody of 
property assessment records, and by then directing any requester 
of those records to the independent contractor assessors.  As we 
noted previously, the municipalities here are the authorities 
for purposes of the open records law. 
¶83 As Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2), in relevant part, states, 
"Costs and fees shall be paid by the authority affected or the 
unit of government of which it is a part, or by the unit of 
government by which the legal custodian under s. 19.33 is 
employed and may not become a personal liability of any public 
official."  The statute discusses governmental or quasi-
governmental entities, not private citizens, corporations,16 or 
even 
individual 
public 
officials, 
as 
being 
the 
parties 
responsible for paying any damages or fees under the statute to 
a prevailing requester.  Given that we have held that the 
independent contractor assessors are not authorities under the 
open records law, and being satisfied that the statutes do not 
otherwise 
provide 
for 
independent 
contractor 
assessors' 
liability, we hold that the municipalities retain sole liability 
in cases such as the present ones for any damages or fees 
resulting from a violation. 
                                                 
16 The 
independent 
contractor 
assessors 
here 
were 
incorporated as limited liability corporations. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
46 
 
¶84 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 19.36(3) 
further 
supports 
our 
holding on this issue.  The statute, in relevant part, states, 
"[E]ach authority shall make available for inspection and 
copying under s. 19.35(1) any record produced or collected under 
a contract entered into by the authority with a person other 
than an authority to the same extent as if the record were 
maintained 
by 
the 
authority." 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 19.36(3).  
Accordingly, the statute's plain language makes an authority, 
here the municipality, solely responsible for any liability for 
failing to comply with the open records law. 
¶85 Our holding here also comports with prior Wisconsin 
case law.  In one relevant case, the court of appeals held that 
two 
newspapers 
could 
have 
access 
to 
a 
memorandum 
of 
understanding that ended a lawsuit between a school district and 
its former superintendent even though the agreement resided in 
the private law firm files of the district's non-employee 
attorney who had prepared the memorandum.  Journal/Sentinel, 
Inc. v. Shorewood Sch. Bd., 186 Wis. 2d 443, 446, 521 N.W.2d 165 
(Ct. App. 1994).  The court of appeals held that the law firm 
was not an authority under the open records law.  Id. at 452.  
However, the court of appeals held that the school board was an 
authority, and also held that the memorandum was a record that 
was produced under a contract entered into by the authority, 
which made the memorandum subject to disclosure.  Id. at 452-53. 
¶86 Additional Wisconsin case law supports our decision on 
this issue.  In Blum, the court of appeals reiterated that an 
authority "may not avoid the public access mandate of Chapter  
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
47 
 
19 . . . 'by delegating both [a] record's creation and custody 
to an agent.'"  State ex rel. Blum, 209 Wis. 2d at 382, citing 
Journal/Sentinel, Inc., 186 Wis. 2d at 452-53. 
¶87 We disagree with the municipalities' contention that 
Machotka v. Village of West Salem, 2000 WI App 43, 233 Wis. 2d 
106, 607 N.W.2d 319, and Building and Construction Trades 
Council of South Central Wisconsin v. Waunakee Community School 
District, 221 Wis. 2d 575, 585 N.W.2d 726 (Ct. App. 1998), 
control to absolve the municipalities of their responsibility 
for any violations of the open records law.  In both of the 
cited cases, the requesters were seeking records that fell 
outside of the parameters of the contractual obligations between 
the 
authorities 
and 
their 
independent 
contractors. 
 
See 
Machotka, 233 Wis. 2d 106, ¶9; Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of 
S. Cent. Wis., 221 Wis. 2d at 580-81.  In contrast to those two 
cases, 
here, 
the 
municipalities 
had 
contracted 
with 
the 
independent contractor assessors to collect and maintain the 
records that WIREdata was seeking. 
¶88 While the municipalities may not avoid liability in 
the present cases for any violations of the open records law 
just because they employed independent contractor assessors, as 
previously noted, we are satisfied that the municipalities acted 
reasonably and promptly, given the circumstances.  As a result, 
the municipalities are not liable in the present cases. 
¶89 In summary, we hold that a municipality may not avoid 
liability under the open records law by contracting with an 
independent contractor assessor for the collection, maintenance, 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
48 
 
and custody of its property assessment records, and by then 
directing any requester of those records to such an assessor. 
VII 
¶90 The fifth issue before us is whether the court of 
appeals was mistaken in concluding that the petitioners and the 
cross-petitioners had not fulfilled WIREdata's initial open 
records requests, once they produced PDFs with the requested 
information and gave those files to WIREdata. 
¶91 The petitioners and the cross-petitioners claim that, 
by providing WIREdata with the PDFs, they satisfied the 
company's open records requests because the company requested an 
electronic, digital format of the data.  Furthermore, the 
petitioners and the cross-petitioners maintain that providing 
the requested information to WIREdata in any format, including 
the PDF format, was more than the open records law required 
because the provision of the relevant data required the creation 
of a new record, which is explicitly exempted under Wis. Stat. 
§ 19.35(1)(L).  The petitioners and the cross-petitioners assert 
that, when WIREdata received the PDF files, the company received 
all of the relevant information that was in the possession of 
either the assessors or the municipalities.  Finally, they argue 
that the quality of the data that WIREdata received in the PDFs 
was the exact same quality of data as the company would have 
received using any other format, including using the Market 
Drive software.  As a result, they assert that WIREdata's only 
remaining complaint is that the data's format was not optimal 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
49 
 
for its needs, which is not an appropriate claim upon which a 
writ of mandamus should issue. 
¶92 WIREdata argues that the PDFs were not sufficient 
responses to even its "initial" requests for the records in an 
electronic, digital format.  WIREdata further contends that the 
PDFs were not responsive to its "enhanced" requests.  WIREdata 
asserts that a records custodian should not be able to produce 
such records in a format that it does not typically keep the 
records in.  WIREdata argues that Pelkey was an agent of the 
municipalities, and, therefore, that WIREdata's later "enhanced" 
requests for a specific data format had to be followed, in lieu 
of following its first requests for any electronic, digital 
file. 
¶93 For the reasons discussed in detail below, we are 
satisfied that the court of appeals was mistaken in concluding 
that the petitioners and the cross-petitioners had not fulfilled 
WIREdata's initial open records requests once they produced PDFs 
with the requested information and gave those files to WIREdata.  
In addition, the records requested were offered to WIREdata, by 
all three municipalities, in written form shortly after its 
requests were made, demonstrating good faith efforts to satisfy 
such requests quickly.  The PDF files satisfied the open records 
requests of WIREdata, as its initial requests were worded.  Our 
holdings in the present case are based on WIREdata's initial 
requests because the enhanced requests were not properly 
submitted to the relevant authorities.  Accordingly, we need not 
address 
whether 
the 
municipalities' 
responses 
satisfied 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
50 
 
WIREdata's purported "enhanced requests" because WIREdata's 
communications with Pelkey and with the independent contractor 
assessors did not constitute appropriate enhanced requests to 
authorities. 
¶94 WIREdata's attorney admitted at oral argument before 
this court that the "enhanced" requests had not been submitted 
to the municipalities.17  The "enhanced" requests were submitted 
directly to Pelkey or to the independent contractor assessors, 
who 
are 
not 
authorities 
under 
the 
open 
records 
law.  
Accordingly, WIREdata now erroneously tries to claim that the 
PDF files were inappropriate because of the company's later 
"enhanced" requests. 
¶95 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.32(2) defines a "record" as "any 
material on which written, drawn, printed, spoken, visual or 
electromagnetic information is recorded or preserved, regardless 
of physical form or characteristics, which has been created or 
is being kept by an authority."  The statute further defines a 
"record" as including, but not being limited to, "handwritten, 
typed or printed pages, maps, charts, photographs, films, 
recordings, tapes (including computer tapes), computer printouts 
and optical disks."  Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).  The statute 
specifically excludes from its definition of a "record" any 
"drafts, notes, preliminary computations and like materials 
                                                 
17 A later, coincidental viewing of an "enhanced" request, 
which was forwarded to a city's or a village's attorney by a 
contractor, was not sufficient to cure the lack of a proper 
submission of an "enhanced" request to the municipality itself. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
51 
 
prepared for the originator's personal use or prepared by the 
originator in the name of a person for whom the originator is 
working; . . . materials to which access is limited by 
copyright, patent or bequest . . . ."  Id. 
¶96 There is no dispute that WIREdata's requests were for 
records within the meaning of the statute.  The question is 
whether the PDFs supplied by Grota to WIREdata fulfilled 
WIREdata's initial requests to the municipalities, which were 
for 
"electronic/digital" 
copies. 
 
PDF 
files 
are 
"electronic/digital" 
files, 
as 
WIREdata 
conceded 
at 
oral 
argument.  Thus, despite the fact that the PDF files did not 
have all of the characteristics that WIREdata wished (that is, 
WIREdata could not easily manipulate the data), the PDF files 
did fulfill WIREdata's initial requests as worded.  In addition, 
the records requested were offered to WIREdata, by all three 
municipalities, in written form shortly after its requests were 
made, demonstrating good faith efforts to satisfy such requests 
quickly.18 
¶97 We disagree with the court of appeals' statement that 
requesters must be given access to an authority's electronic 
databases to examine them, extract information from them, or 
copy them.  See WIREdata, Inc., 298 Wis. 2d 743, ¶¶1, 3, 63, 64, 
65, 70.  We share the DOJ's concern, as expressed in its amicus 
brief, that allowing requesters such direct access to the 
                                                 
18 We do not address the issue of whether providing the data 
in written form would satisfy Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(b). 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
52 
 
electronic databases of an authority would pose substantial 
risks.  For example, confidential data that is not subject to 
disclosure under the open records law might be viewed or copied.  
Also, 
the 
authority's 
database 
might 
be 
damaged, 
either 
inadvertently or intentionally.  We are satisfied that it is 
sufficient for the purposes of the open records law for an 
authority, as here, to provide a copy of the relevant data in an 
appropriate format. 
¶98 In summary, we are satisfied that the court of appeals 
was mistaken in concluding that the petitioners and the cross-
petitioners had not fulfilled WIREdata's initial open records 
requests, once they produced PDFs with the requested information 
and gave those files to WIREdata.  In addition, all three 
municipalities offered the requested records to WIREdata in 
written form shortly after its requests were made.  Such offers 
demonstrated good faith efforts to provide WIREdata with the 
requested information quickly. 
VIII 
¶99 The sixth issue before us on review is whether the 
fees charged to WIREdata were fees that complied with the open 
records law. 
¶100 On review, Grota argues that the figure he quoted to 
WIREdata of $3,100 was the actual amount or fee that it would 
have cost to provide the requested "enhanced" data.  Grota 
explains that the $3,100 figure was based on a trial run 
attempting to provide the requested information in a text 
format, which WIREdata demanded in its "enhanced" requests.  
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
53 
 
Grota argues that, because the $3,100 price accompanied an 
agreement to provide the requested "enhanced" data, it was an 
actual estimated cost, which comports with the requirements of 
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3).  Furthermore, Grota argues that the 
complexity of WIREdata's "enhanced" requests does not lend 
itself to a simplistic application of § 19.35(3).  Grota 
explains that the price Pelkey had quoted to WIREdata of $6,600 
was merely a business proposition that included substantial data 
formatting and annual updates to the data. 
¶101 On review, WIREdata claims that Pelkey admitted that 
the database could be copied for substantially less than the 
$6,600 he requested.  WIREdata alleges that Grota was attempting 
to charge a fee that would result in a profit.  As a result, 
WIREdata argues that the fees that Grota attempted to charge the 
company exceeded the actual, necessary and direct costs allowed 
under Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3). 
¶102 For the reasons discussed in detail below, we hold 
that, because no fees were actually charged to WIREdata for the 
information provided in the PDF format, the municipalities did 
not violate the open records law. 
¶103 Wisconsin Stat. § 19.35(3)(a) states, "An authority 
may impose a fee upon the requester of a copy of a record which 
may not exceed the actual, necessary and direct cost of 
reproduction and transcription of the record, unless a fee is 
otherwise 
specifically 
established 
or 
authorized 
to 
be 
established by law."  As a result, the authority may not make a 
profit on its response to an open records request. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
54 
 
¶104 As this court has noted, an authority under the open 
records law "is not required, by itself, to bear the costs of 
producing documents in response to [an open records law] 
request."  Osborn, 254 Wis. 2d 266, ¶46.  As we stated, in that 
case, under Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3), an authority may impose a fee 
on the records requester "for the location, reproduction or 
photographic processing of the requested records, but the fee 
may not exceed the actual, necessary and direct cost of 
complying with the open records requests."  Id. 
¶105 The record reflects that, in early 2004, Assessment 
Technologies, through Grota Appraisals, sent a copy in PDF 
format of Port Washington's assessment records "free of charge" 
to WIREdata.  The records were on a compact disc, and WIREdata 
admitted that the records were a "digital/electronic version" of 
the requested data for Port Washington.  The record also 
reflects that, in early 2004, Grota Appraisals sent a copy in 
PDF format of Sussex's assessment records "free of charge" to 
WIREdata.  The records were on a compact disc, and WIREdata 
admitted that the records were a "digital/electronic version" of 
the requested data for Sussex.  Furthermore, the record also 
reflects that Grota sent to WIREdata a copy of Thiensville's 
assessment records in PDF format.  There is no information in 
the record before us on review to contradict the logical 
assumptions that this PDF also was sent to WIREdata free of 
charge and that WIREdata also considered that file to be a 
"digital/electronic 
version" 
of 
the 
requested 
data 
for 
Thiensville. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
55 
 
¶106 It is important to note that the record before us 
reflects 
that, 
at 
Grota's deposition, WIREdata's attorney 
conceded that WIREdata would have taken the requested data "in 
any format, in any digital mode."  Additionally, WIREdata's 
Chief 
Technology 
Officer, 
Tom 
Curtis, 
agreed 
during 
his 
deposition that, unlike the "enhanced" requests, WIREdata's 
"initial" requests did not "say anything about comma delimited 
ASCII files[.]" 
¶107 Because we do not have a sufficient record before us 
to determine what an appropriate fee would have been for the 
provision of "enhanced" data for all three municipalities, we 
will not address that issue further, except to note that nothing 
in this opinion should be viewed as changing or modifying our 
prior case law that an authority may charge fees only as 
provided under Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3)(a), fees that reflect the 
actual, 
necessary, 
and 
direct 
costs 
of 
providing 
the 
information.  However, we agree with the comment in the amicus 
brief of the DOJ that an authority may charge a requester for 
the authority's actual costs in complying with the request, such 
as any computer programming expenses or any other related 
expenses.  We reiterate that an authority may not make a profit, 
but an authority may recoup all of its actual costs. 
¶108 In summary, we hold that, because no fees were 
actually charged for the information the municipalities provided 
to WIREdata in the PDF format, the municipalities did not 
violate the open records law. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
56 
 
 
IX 
¶109 We hold as follows on the issues: based on the facts 
of the present case, WIREdata did not properly commence the 
mandamus actions against the municipalities under the open 
records law, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1), because the 
municipalities had not denied WIREdata's requests for the 
records before WIREdata filed the mandamus actions; WIREdata's 
initial written requests were not insufficient as a matter of 
law as to time and subject matter; a municipality's independent 
contractor assessor is not an authority under the open records 
law, so that the independent contractor assessor is not a proper 
recipient of an open records request; a municipality may not 
avoid liability under the open records law by contracting with 
an 
independent 
contractor 
assessor 
for 
the 
collection, 
maintenance, and custody of its property assessment records and 
by then directing any requester of those records to the 
independent contractor assessor who has custody of the sought-
after records; the court of appeals was mistaken in concluding 
that the petitioners and the cross-petitioners had not fulfilled 
WIREdata's initial open records requests, once they produced PDF 
files with the requested information and gave those files to 
WIREdata; and, because no fees were actually charged for the 
information the municipalities provided to WIREdata in the PDF 
format, the municipalities did not violate the open records law.  
Accordingly, the municipalities are not liable for any damages 
in the present action. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
57 
 
¶110 We reverse in part and affirm in part the decision of 
the court of appeals.  WIREdata, Inc., 298 Wis. 2d 743, ¶¶2, 3, 
67-70.  In order to assist the reader in understanding our 
determinations, in relation to that decision, we disagree with 
the court of appeals' specific holdings as follows: that the 
three municipalities denied the open records requests of 
WIREdata and, thus, violated the open records law; that the PDFs 
were insufficient to comply with such open records requests; 
that the open records law requires access to the computerized 
database19; that the "enhanced" demands did not require the 
creation of new records; and that WIREdata is entitled to fees 
and costs from each of the municipalities.  However, we agree 
with the court of appeals' specific holdings as follows: that 
the municipalities are the responsible authorities under the 
open records law; that such responsibility cannot be shifted to 
independent contractor assessors; and that the initial written 
requests of WIREdata were valid and, thus, were not insufficient 
as to subject matter and length of time. 
                                                 
19 The court of appeals' decision on this point may have 
been misinterpreted by some commentators as "compelling access 
to the original database that contained metadata that a digital 
copy did not contain."  See Leanne Holcomb & James Isaac, 
Wisconsin's Public-Records Law: Preserving the Presumption of 
Complete Public Access in the Age of Electronic Records, 2008 
Wis. L. Rev. 515, 559, n.272.  We note that the court of 
appeals' decision on this issue did not specifically discuss 
metadata, but merely stated that WIREdata must be given access 
to 
the 
requested 
data 
"whatever 
its 
physical 
form 
or 
characteristics."  WIREdata, Inc., 298 Wis. 2d 743, ¶64. 
No. 
2005AP1473, 2006AP174, & 2006AP175   
 
58 
 
By the Court.——The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed in part and affirmed in part, and these cases are 
remanded to the circuit courts involved for actions consistent 
with this opinion. 
¶111 LOUIS B. BUTLER, Jr., J., did not participate. 
 
No.  2005AP1473.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶112 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (concurring).  I join 
the majority opinion except Part III in which the majority 
opinion 
determines 
that 
the 
municipalities 
did 
not 
deny 
WIREdata's open records requests.  Majority op. ¶49.1   
¶113 All three municipalities referred WIREdata's open 
records request to an independent contractor assessor.  Sussex 
and Thiensville each directed WIREdata's request to their 
independent 
contractor 
assessor, 
Grota 
Appraisals.2 
 
Port 
Washington 
asked 
WIREdata 
to 
direct 
its 
request 
to 
its 
independent contractor assessor, Matthies Assessments.3  
¶114 Each municipality's independent contractor assessor 
denied WIREdata's request for the records after the receiving 
the request on referral from the municipality.  Sussex's 
assessor, Grota Appraisals, forwarded WIREdata's request to yet 
another independent contractor, Andrew Pelkey, who refused to 
comply with WIREdata's request except on payment of a $6,600 
fee.4  Grota Appraisals also, according to the majority opinion, 
                                                 
1 "If a municipality withholds a record or delays granting 
access, the requester may immediately bring an action for 
mandamus seeking release of the record."  WTMJ, Inc. v. 
Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 461, 555 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1996) 
(quoting State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 200 
Wis. 2d 585, 592-93, 547 N.W.2d 587 (1996)).   
2 Majority op., ¶¶12, 28.   
3 Majoirty op., ¶36.   
4 Majority op., ¶¶12, 16.   
Counsel 
for 
Sussex 
also 
sent 
WIREdata 
a 
letter 
characterizing WIREdata's open records request as involving, in 
part, a private "business transaction" between WIREdata and 
Grota Appraisals and not involving Sussex's duties under the 
open records law.  Majority op., ¶20.  
No.  2005AP1473.ssa 
 
2 
 
failed even to respond to the request made upon Thiensville 
until two months after the request had been made.5  Port 
Washington's assessor, Matthies Assessments, expressly informed 
WIREdata that it was prohibited from complying with WIREdata's 
request.6 
¶115 Although I agree as a general matter with the majority 
opinion that "a communication from an independent contractor 
assessor should not be construed as a denial of an open records 
request,"7 I do not agree that the same is true when an open 
records request is directed to a proper governmental authority 
under the open records law and the authority chooses to refer 
the request to an independent contractor assessor.  The 
municipalities in the present case referred WIREdata's requests 
to their independent contractor assessors and thus must be held 
responsible 
for 
their 
assessors' 
responses 
to 
WIREdata's 
requests.   
¶116 For the reasons set forth, I write separately on the 
issue of the relationship of the municipalities and assessors 
when a municipality refers an open record request to an assessor 
to respond on behalf of the municipality.     
                                                 
5 Majority op., ¶¶28, 31.   
Alternatively, the record may be read to suggest that Grota 
Appraisals forwarded the Thiensville request to Richard Pelkey 
(just as it did for the Sussex request) and that Pelkey's demand 
for a $6,600 fee pertained to the request made upon Thiensville 
as well as to the request upon Sussex.      
6 Majority op., ¶37.   
7 Majority op., ¶77.  
No.  2005AP1473.ssa 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
No.  2005AP1473.ssa 
 
1