The Petitioner alleged that the City of Wilmington’s decision to use an outside vendor to perform the search and production of emails was unreasonable and that the fee estimate was unreasonably high.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. The City presented affidavits supporting that the use of a vendor was reasonably required. Also, it was determined that the City adequately demonstrated that the outside vendor’s fee estimate did not violate FOIA.
The petitioner requested records regarding a site which was the subject of an environmental enforcement action. DNREC denied the request pursuant to pending or potential litigation exemption, and the petitioner alleged that DNREC improperly withheld records under this exemption.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found, as the requested records related to the subject matter of pending litigation between the petitioner’s clients and DNREC.
Petitioner alleged that DELJIS improperly withheld information from a database. DECIDED: As Petitioner is not a citizen of Delaware, DELJIS properly asserted in the denial that it was not required to fulfill the request.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that several estimated charges for production of the requested records were unreasonable under FOIA. DECIDED: The City provided sufficient evidence that they had complied with FOIA’s requirements to support their final estimated fees.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that DNREC improperly denied records request for several reasons: 1) the denial was in violation of another Delaware statute; 2) DNREC provided insufficient justification for the denial; and 3) the exemptions for pending or potential litigation and investigatory records did not apply to the requested records. DECIDED: This Office does not have the authority under the FOIA statute to determine whether another statute was violated. DNREC provided sufficient justification for its denial. DNREC appropriately cited the pending litigation exemption because the individual requesting records is a member of the entity that is actively involved in a pending administrate appeal with DNREC.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that DNREC improperly withheld database records and did not provide sufficient assistance in identifying and locating responsive records. DECIDED: DNREC is not required by FOIA to create a new record to provide the information sought and that DNREC sufficiently provided reasonable assistance to identify and locate the information sought.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that he was entitled to receive Delaware Department of Insurance (“DOI”) records because DOI denied records in bad faith, was required to provide records to non-citizens of Delaware, and was required to provide the records pursuant to another Delaware statute. DECIDED: DOI did not violate FOIA as alleged.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Town Manager and Police Chief lacked the authority to execute certain documents, that the Town Manager and Police Chief are a public body that must hold open meetings, and that the public interest in these documents must trigger open meeting requirements. DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. Questions of municipal law are outside the scope of FOIA.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Delaware State Police (“DSP”) improperly withheld records under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (“LEOBOR”) and a confidentiality order. DECIDED: Complaints against law enforcement officers were properly withheld as records specifically exempted from public disclosure under LEOBOR. There was insufficient information from the parties to determine if other records responsive to the request for litigation documents exist. This Office recommended that the petitioner file a new request with any available information to assist DSP in locating possibly responsive records and DSP respond to the request as required by FOIA.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that a meeting of the Dewey Beach Town Manager, Audit Committee chair, accountants, and auditor constituted a meeting of a public body that did not meet open meeting requirements. Petitioner further alleged that certain legal authority and the public interest in the meeting topic required the meeting to be subject to open meeting requirements. DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. Questions of municipal law are outside the scope of FOIA.
Read More