Opinion ID: 1591641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Data Collected

Text: We first consider whether the orders and objections constitute data collected. Although the term data is not defined in the MGDPA, data usually is said to mean individual facts, statistics, or items of information[.] The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 508 (2d ed.1987). To collect means to gather together; assemble[.] Id. at 403. Thus, section 13.39, subdivision 2, requires some affirmative action by the state agency to gather or assemble data. See St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter, 496 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Minn.1993). When an agency gets information as a passive recipient, that information is not data collected. Id. DOLI argues that the orders do not constitute data collected because the orders were not collected by the agency but instead were created by the agency itself. St. Peter Herald is the only case involving the MGDPA where this court has addressed whether the data in question constitute data collected. 496 N.W.2d at 814. In St. Peter Herald, the city of St. Peter received a notice of claim in the form of a letter from a private attorney. Id. at 813. When reporters requested copies of the letter, the city attorney refused to provide copies on the ground that the letter was private data. Id. Two newspapers then brought an action to compel disclosure of the notice of claim. Id. This court concluded that the information contained in a notice of claim sent to the city by a private attorney was not data collected because the city did not take any affirmative action to gather the information contained in the notice of claim. Id. at 814. The facts here are quite different from St. Peter Herald. DOLI did undertake an internal investigation that involved the collection of data concerning Trendsetters, WBC, and the Westroms. DOLI acknowledges that the issuance of the Orders was undoubtedly based upon information obtained by [DOLI's] ISU investigation[.] Therefore, although DOLI created the orders, these orders are inextricably linked to and are the product of the data collected by DOLI during its investigation. To the extent that the orders reflect DOLI's conclusions, drawn from examining data gathered in the course of its investigation, we conclude that the orders constitute data collected under Minn.Stat. § 13.39, subd. 2(a) (2002). [6] With respect to the objections, DOLI contends that they do not constitute data collected because DOLI was merely a passive recipient of these objections. But DOLI issued the orders and the Westroms were required to submit written objections within ten days in order to preserve their right to challenge the order. Minn.Stat. § 176.181, subd. 3(b) (2002). By requiring that an employer file timely objections to its orders in order to maintain a vital right, DOLI becomes more than a passive recipient of the objections. The objections are not in any sense voluntary, but are a continuation of DOLI's data collection process. We conclude that the objections also constitute data collected under Minn.Stat. § 13.39, subd. 2(a) (2002).