03-IB26 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant asks for reconsideration of Attorney General Opinion 03-IB10 dated May 6, 2003. Held: FOIA cannot be used by a party to litigation to gain a discovery advantage.
Read More03-IB22: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Woodbridge School District
The Complainant alleged that the Woodbridge School District (“the School District”) violated FOIA by not providing timely notice to the public that the School District would approve a change order to increase the cost of a construction contract. Held: the School District violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by failing to give timely notice to the public that it would discuss a change order to a construction contract.
Read More03-IB21 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by not providing the names, addresses, and policy numbers of insurance carriers which underwrite public official coverage for the County. The County contended the requested information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA for two reasons: (1) “the [insurance] coverage information in the policy contains confidential information or financial details”; and (2) the information “falls within the pending or potential litigation exception.” Held: County did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA by refusing to provide documents that contain the names and addresses of insurers and the insurance policy numbers because the records containing such information fall within the potential litigation exception under FOIA.
Read More03-IB16 08/08/03 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Maher re: FOIA Complaints Against Town of Slaughter Beach
The Complainants alleged that the Town of Slaughter Beach (“the Town”) violated FOIA by discussing matters of public business at a meeting on July 1, 2003 without the required notice to the public. The Town contends that it satisfied the notice requirements of FOIA by posting the notice and agenda for the July 1, 2003 special meeting three days in advance of the meeting. Held: the Town did not violate FOIA by publishing the notice for a special meeting on July 1, 2003 three days in advance since FOIA permits notice for special meetings to be less than seven days (but not less than 24 hours) when there is good reason.
Read More03-IB11 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Newark
The Complainant alleged that the City of Newark (“the City”) violated FOIA by meeting via an exchange of e-mails without notice to the public or an opportunity for the public to participate. Held: the City violated FOIA when, in an exchange of e-mails over the course of March 13-14, 2002, the City’s Nominating Committee discussed public business without notice to the public and without an opportunity for the public to observe.
Read More03-IB10 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by denying you access to documents regarding the Red Lion Village subdivision. The County claims that the documents you requested are not subject to FOIA for two reasons: (1) they pertain to “pending litigation” before the County Planning Board; and (2) they pertain to “potential litigation” because any decision by the Planning Board could be appealed to court. Held: the documents requested from the County are not “public records” for purposes of FOIA because they are within the exemption for pending litigation.
Read More03-IB02 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by denying access to “subpoenas issued to either New Castle County government or individual county employees by the U. S. Attorney’s Office since September 1, 2002.” Held: Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is a statute which specifically exempts the disclosure of grand jury subpoenas under FOIA.
Read More03-IB01 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by not providing her with the “names, addresses, or telephone numbers for the President or other contact persons” for maintenance corporations registered with the County on the ground of personal privacy. Held: the names of the presidents and the contact address for each corporation are public information under FOIA. However the County did not violate the open records requirements of FOIA by denying access to the home and work telephone numbers of such presidents.
Read More02-IB32 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by denying his request for “copies of letters sent by the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis to the News Journal regarding Sherry Freeberry’s Statement of Financial Interest.” The County claims these records are exempt from disclosure under FOIA because “[t]hese letters related directly to potential litigation and were prepared by the County Attorney’s designee.” Held: the County has failed to meet its burden of proof to justify withholding these records from the public. The purpose of FOIA’s potential litigation exemption is to prevent a party from using FOIA in lieu of the discovery rules to obtain information outside the judicial process. For the exemption to apply, the public body that is the custodian of the records must show objective criteria that litigation is likely, and a sufficient nexus between the records and the subject matter of any potential litigation. See Att’y Gen. Op. 02-IB30 (Dec. 2, 2002).
Read More02-IB30 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by denying your request for “a copy of all documents which were prepared for, relied upon, or handed out to participants and/or any County employees at the special meeting held by the County Executive on Thursday, July 11, 2002 at 4 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room at the County Government Center.” By letter dated August 6, 2002, the County denied your request. Held: the County did not violate FOIA by withholding the personal notes prepared by Mr. Baker for the July 11, 2002 meeting because they are not “public records” as defined by FOIA. We determine that the County violated FOIA by not providing you with access to the remaining documents you requested because the County has failed to meet its burden of proof that those documents are within the potential litigation or other exemption under FOIA.
Read More
