Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/5-electronic-records/
Timestamp: 2020-05-25 18:05:09
Document Index: 213458428

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 22', '§ 2721', '§ 25', '§ 6254', '§ 6253', '§ 6253', '§ 24', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 50', '§ 50', '§ 74', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 44', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§84', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 9', '§ 9']

5. Electronic records (e.g., databases, metadata) Archives - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
The Alabama Public Records Law provides access to "public writings," without more definition, but recent statutes, case law, and attorney general opinions have recognized that the term includes electronic records. See, e.g., Ala. Code § 22-9A-21(f) (1997) ("The [nonrestricted public birth] records may be made available for viewing in photographic, digital, electronic, or other suitable format as provided for by rules of the [State Board of Health]."); Birmingham News Co. v. Perry, 21 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2125 (Cir. Ct. of Montgomery County, Ala., July 22, 1993) (Alabama Department of Public Safety ordered to make computer databases of Department available to provide access to motor vehicle records in the databases) (as of Sept. 13, 1997, access to MVRs is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 2721); 227 Op. Att'y Gen. Ala. 42 (1992) (redacted data from fire district computer database due to be disclosed); 217 Op. Att'y Gen. Ala. 29 (Nov. 17, 1989) and 197 Op. Att'y Gen. Ala. 21 (Nov. 16, 1984) (computer printout of executions and sales is "well-bound book" as required by statute); 209 Op. Att'y Gen. Ala. 29 (Nov. 4, 1987) ("The reasoning applicable to documentary records in [the tax assessor's] office also applies to information provided by your office through the use of computers."); see also Ala. Att’y Gen. Opp. 157 (June 4, 1998); Ala. Att’y Gen. Opp. 108 (April 1, 2004) (finding computerized mugshots are public records).
The trial judge in Perry articulated one of the primary reasons that computerized information is recognized as a "writing" for purposes of the Public Records Law, as follows:
Certainly, the Department was able to carry out its business without the aid of computers before such technology was available. However, the Court recognizes that computers have added a great amount of value to our public records, and that currently the Department generates the MVRs by computers. Therefore, without the aid of the computer data base, citizens would not, as a practical matter, have access to all of the information compiled.
21 Media L. Rep. (BNA) at 2126.
The definition of public records encompasses electronic records, though it does not refer to them specifically as such. It includes all items "regardless of format or physical characteristics" with the specific exception of "proprietary software programs." The law also provides for dissemination through a state-maintained internet site of postings by state agencies called the Alaska Online Public Notice System. In rejecting a claim that using private email accounts to conduct official business was an obstruction of access and therefore a per se violation of the Public Records Act, the Alaska Supreme Court noted that “using private email accounts is no more an obstruction of access to public records than communicating through paper letters. … [T]he (Records Management) law requires a state employee to retrain records; whether the record exists in paper or electronic form does not change the analysis.” McLeod v. Parnell, 286 P.3d at 515.
Until its amendment in 2001, the FOIA did not expressly mention electronic records. However, it applied to “data compilations in any form,” and this provision reached electronic records. See, e.g., Blaylock v. Staley, 293 Ark. 26, 732 S.W.2d 152 (1987). See also Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 99-018 (electronically stored e-mail messages are public records), 97-115 (FOIA applies to “computerized information”). In 1999, the General Assembly created the Electronic Records Study Commission to study public access to electronic information and recommend amendments to the FOIA for consideration by the legislature in 2001. The bill drafted by the ERSC formed the basis for Act 1653 of 2001, which included “electronic or computer-based information” within the FOIA’s definition of public record, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(5)(A), and made other changes to facilitate public access to data in electronic form. ’
The fact that public records may be stored in a computer does not affect their status as public records. Cal. Gov't Code § 6254.9(d). Section 6253.9 of the CPRA requires public agencies that have information which constitutes an identifiable public record not otherwise exempt from disclosure that is in an electronic format to make that information available in an electronic format when requested by any person. Cal. Gov't Code § 6253.9. This statute supersedes portions of an earlier statute (Section 6253(b)) that allowed public agencies to determine the form in which computer data would be made available. See Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 157, 165, 158 Cal. Rtpr. 3d 639, 302 P.3d 1026 (2013) (discussing provision); see, e.g., Comm’n on Peace Officers Standards and Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278, 288 n.3, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 661, 165 P.3d 462 (2007) (noting that information stored in commission’s computer database qualified as “writing” within meaning of CPRA); Cty. of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374 (2009) (allowing for disclosure of county’s GIS basemap data); Cal. Ops. Att'y. Gen. 04-1105 (2005) (parcel boundary map data maintained by county assessor in an electronic format is disclosable in that format under CPRA). Section 6253.9 further requires agencies to make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information, but does not require release of records in electronic format where "release would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or any proprietary software in which it is maintained." Cal. Gov't Code § 6253.9(f).
The California Supreme Court has recognized that where feasible an agency may be required to produce electronic information in a non-native format to facilitate redaction and anonymizing to protect privacy interests even if the native format in which the data is held would not facilitate such functions. In other words, in certain circumstances, an agency may be required to create a record with responsive information where the burden of doing so is not outweighed by the interests in disclosure. See ACLU v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 1032, 1047, 221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832, 400 P.3d 432 (2017). But cf. Sander v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 5th 651, 665-67, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 276 (2018) (holding request to State Bar of California for individually unidentifiable bar admission records required the creation of new records through data manipulation that involved recoding with new values, and thus was beyond the scope of the CPRA).
Records maintained in electronic or digital format are declared to be "public records." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-202(7).
Even though electronic records like databases and metadata are not specifically mentioned in the statute, this information should fall within the general definition of “public record . . . regardless of physical form” as well. D.C. Code. Ann. § 2-502(18). As the D.C. Court of Appeals has explained:
Electronic records have been subject to D.C. FOIA since the Council extended the statute's coverage through the Freedom of Information Amendment Act of 2000, D.C. Law 13–283, 48 D.C. Reg. 1917 (2001). The Council stated that its intent, “in keeping with the general purpose of FOIA,” was “to provide the public greater access to information, improve the effectiveness of the law, and encourage better government responsiveness to requests for public records.” Committee on Government Operations, D.C. Council, Report on Bill No. 13–829 at 1 (2000). As amended, D.C. FOIA provides that “[i]n responding to a request for records pursuant to this section, a public body shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when the efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the public body's automated information system.” D.C. Code Ann. § 2–532(a–2).
Fraternal Order of Police v. District of Columbia, 139 A.3d 853, 866 n.29 (D.C. 2016).
The Act specifically defines public record to include "computer based or generated information,” “data” and “data fields,” O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(b)(2).
An agency’s use of electronic record-keeping systems “must not erode the public’s right of access.” § 50-18-71(f). In the case of electronic records, data and data fields, the Act provides that agencies shall produce electronic copies or, if the requester prefers, printouts of electronic records or data from data base fields that the agency maintains using the computer programs that the agency has in its possession. Id.
Idaho Code § 74-102(15) provides that “[n]othing contained herein shall prevent a public agency or independent body corporate and politic from providing a copy of a public record in electronic form if the record is available in electronic form and if the person specifically requests an electronic copy.”
Indiana Administrative Rule 9(D), the “General Access Rule,” applies to all court records, “regardless of the manner of creation, method of collection, form of storage, or the form in which the record is maintained.”
When certain records are available in electronic form—including judgments, orders, and decrees—Courts “should FOI” to make them remotely accessible. Id. 9(E). A public agency that maintains public records in an electronic data storage system must make “reasonable efforts” to provide the requestor “a copy of all disclosable data contained in the records on paper, disk, tape, drum, or any other method of electronic retrieval if the medium requested is compatible with the agency’s data storage system.” Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3(d).
Further, the definition of “public record” includes information generated on “magnetic or machine readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics.” Ind. Code § 5-14-3-2(r). The statute was amended in 1993 and 1995 to provide “enhanced access” to electronically stored information if the public agency provides access in that manner. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3.5. “Enhanced access” is the inspection of a public record (a) by means of an electronic device other than one provided in the office of the public agency, or (b) which requires compiling or creating a list that doesn’t result in permanent electronic storage of that information. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-2(f). A state agency or public agency “may or may not” provide enhanced access solely at its discretion. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3(c)(1); see also Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3.6(b) (“As an additional means of inspecting and copying public records, a public agency may provide enhanced access to public records maintained by the public agency.”); § 5-14-3-3.5(a)-(b) (authorizing the same for a state agency, as defined in Ind. Code § 4-13-1-1).
"Information contained in electronic data processing equipment" is specifically included in the definition of "public records." La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:1(A)(2). Electronic information therefore is subject to the general provisions of the Public Records Act. See Ops. Att'y Gen. 98-366 (records stored via electronic imaging system); 90-576 (computer records of 911 calls subject to Public Records Act), 90-576 (computer information generated by office of assessor is subject to Public Records Act), 90-398 (computer information regarding student records subject to Public Records Act). However, privacy issues may be raised. See Ops. Att'y Gen. 01-155 (monitoring and electronic recording of board members' private computer equipment under a public records request would violate individual members' right to privacy).
The Massachusetts Public Records Law does not distinguish between paper and electronic records, and “clearly applies to government records generated, received, or maintained electronically.” SPR Bulletin No. 4-96 (June 7, 1996). A records custodian must “furnish copies of non-exempt portions of computerized information at the cost of reproduction, unless otherwise provided by law.” Guide to Mass. Pub. Records Law at 41 (Sec’y of State, rev. Mar. 2020, https://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf. Custodians should provide public records in electronic format unless it is not available in electronic form or the requester cannot receive or access it electronically. Id. If possible, the record should be produced in the requester’s preferred format. Id.
Extracting data from a database is not the creation of a new record. Guide to Mass. Pub. Recs. Law at 9 (Sec’y of State, rev. Mar. 2020); 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(f). Agencies therefore cannot deny requests for data that exists in a database because it would be creating a new record. Id. “To do so would deny access to information that does exist at the time of the request, though not in a form easily accessible by the requester.” Id.
There are no decisions regarding whether a requester can obtain a customized search of computer databases to fit its particular needs. A computerized database is, however, a writing. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.232(l) (“‘Writing’ means . . . hard drives, solid state storage components, or other means or recording or retaining meaningful content.”). For example, an insurance database maintained by the Michigan Department of State, which contained names, addresses, vehicle ID numbers, registration and insurance audit information was a writing and therefore a public record subject to disclosure under FOIA. However, the individual seeking the information must still pay the fee associated with obtaining the file. See Ellison v. Dep’t of State, 320 Mich. App. 169 (2017).
Information in electronic format is subject to disclosure under the FOIA. See Farrell v. City of Detroit, 209 Mich. App. 7, 530 N.W.2d 105 (1995); see also Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.232(j) (definition of software, which is not a public record, excludes "computer-stored information or data, or a field name if disclosure of that field name does not violate a software license"); City of Warren v. City of Detroit, 261 Mich. App. 165, 680 N.W.2d 57 (2004) (formula for calculating water rates kept on computer disk is not software and is therefore not exempt from disclosure).
“Data which is a public record in its original form shall remain a public record when maintained in computer files.” Neb. Rev. Stat. §84-712.01(1). Requesters can obtain records in the form and media in which they are maintained, including “electronic data, discs [and] tapes . . . .” Id. If a record is maintained on the custodian’s website, the custodian need not provide a copy of it so long as he provides “the location of the public record on the internet to the requester.” Id. If a requester does not have reasonable access to the internet due to lack of computer, lack of internet availability or inability to use a computer or internet, the custodian must produce copies for the requester. Id.
The North Dakota Century Code states, “Automation of public records must not erode the right of access to those records.” N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3). As public entities increase their use of and dependence on electronic recordkeeping, they must provide reasonable public access to records electronically maintained and must ensure that exempt or confidential records are not disclosed except as otherwise permitted by law. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3).
Furthermore, public entities may not enter into a contract for the creation or maintenance of a public records database if that contract impairs the ability of the public to inspect or copy the public records of an agency, including public records online or stored in an electronic recordkeeping system used by the agency. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3).
An electronic copy of a record must be provided upon request at no cost, other than the standard costs allowed, unless the nature or volume of the public records requested to be accessed or provided requires extensive use of information technology resources. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3). In that case, the agency may charge no more than the actual cost incurred for the extensive use of information technology resources incurred by the public entity. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3). “Extensive” is defined as a request for copies of electronic records which take more than an hour of information technology resources to produce. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(3).
So if a public office keeps recorded information that qualifies as an "electronic record," that information would be available to the public to the same extent it would be if the public office stored the information on paper.
Another statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 9.01, authorizes public offices to store information electronically as well as by other means, including electronically. Section 9.01 requires all public offices using non-paper media for records storage to "keep and make readily available to the general public the machines and equipment necessary to reproduce the records and information in a readable form." Ohio Rev. Code § 9.01.
The Ohio Supreme Court's first thorough analysis of applying the Public Records Act to electronic records was in 1992, when it ordered the City of Cleveland to make copies of magnetic computer tapes containing data about how long it took for police to respond to calls for service. State ex rel. Magolius v. City of Cleveland, 62 Ohio St.3d 456, 584 N.E.2d 665 (1992).
Since then, the court has routinely applied the Public Records Act to order public offices to allow the public to inspect electronically-stored records. E.g., State ex rel Data Trace Info. Servs. LLC v. Cuyahoga Cty Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255, 963 N.E.2d 1288, 2012-Ohio-753 (electronically-stored digital replicas of deeds and similar real estate records); State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 899 N.E.2d 961, 2008-Ohio-6253 (deleted emails); see also State ex rel. Bott Law Grp., L.L.C. v. Ohio Dep't of Nat. Res., Ohio App. 10th Dist. No. 12AP-448, 2013-Ohio-5219, ¶ 51 (Nov. 26, 2013) (ordering public office to “search its journal for responsive e-mail correspondence that were deleted in violation of its records retention policy, and … make reasonable efforts to identify all responsive records stored on the shared servers or on the personal computers").
In 2013, the Legislature deliberately extended the Act to cover electronic communications. Section 552.002(a-2) now states: “[t]he definition of ‘public information’ . . . applies to and includes any electronic communication created, transmitted, received, or maintained on any device if the communication is in connection with the transaction of official business.”