Petitioner alleged that the City of Rehoboth Beach violated FOIA by denying access to an individual’s identity who raised concerns with a safety issue that resulted in an improvement project.
DECIDED: The City violated FOIA in withholding the identity of this individual.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City of Milford improperly withheld records responsive to the second item in the multi-part request, which sought an existing list or similar record showing outside agencies currently granted access to the Flock Safety camera system or data-sharing network. In addition, the petition asserts two claims about the cost estimate, questioning the propriety of the estimate’s inclusion of the charge for review of privileged information and whether the estimate adequately explained that the indicated staff member was the lowest paid employee capable of retrieving the records.
DECIDED: The City violated FOIA by failing to demonstrate that it appropriately withheld this requested list under FOIA. The claims regarding the cost estimate are moot.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City of Milford officials failed to recognize the petitioner’s virtual “raised hand” during the public comment period of the City’s May 12, 2026 Council meeting.
DECIDED: The City violated FOIA by failing to allow the petitioner to give public comment at this meeting.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City of Rehoboth Beach improperly denied a multi-part request for records related to a law enforcement incident. The petition also asserted that the City should have made statements about the existence and preservation of certain records in the response.
DECIDED: The City did not violate FOIA by denying access to the investigatory records pursuant to the investigatory files exemption. The request for policies was not sufficiently described, nor is the City required to create a legal analysis or answer a question in response to a FOIA request. In addition, the claim regarding the existence of records is not a violation of FOIA, and a request for records preservation is outside the scope of FOIA.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City of Lewes violated FOIA by briefly removing a meeting recording that was previously posted online.
DECIDED: As the City is not obliged to post or maintain this video recording on its website, the City did not violate FOIA by removing the video.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Town violated FOIA by: (1) holding a January 2026 public hearing in a venue that was not “open” in accordance with FOIA; (2) improperly discussing and voting on employee compensation and changes to the employee handbook in executive session at the March 11, 2026 meeting; (3) failing to have audio accompanying the live stream when the March meeting resumed after the executive session; (4) failing to accept comments through the live stream at the meeting; and (5) posting the April 15, 2026 meeting agenda five days in advance of the meeting, rather than the required seven days.
DECIDED: The Town violated FOIA by failing to meet its burden to demonstrate the topics of the nonpayment of employee premium pay and changes to the employee handbook were appropriately discussed in executive session. The remaining claims are not violations of FOIA.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City of Newark violated FOIA with respect to a request for law enforcement records. The petition’s claims included: (1) the blanket application of the investigatory files exemption was improper; (2) the City did not provide an adequate denial as it required multiple payments before informing petitioner that substantial portions of the requested records were categorically withheld and not part of the search; (3) the City’s production was largely duplicative email chains; (4) the City failed to provide adequate factual support for withholding records.
DECIDED: For the first claim, the City did not violate FOIA by withholding access to records under the investigatory files exemption. For the second claim, the issue of the incomplete response regarding the records withheld was found to be moot. The third and fourth claims were determined to be without merit.
Read MorePetitioner alleged the Town of Clayton improperly denied a multi-part request for records related to its license plate surveillance system. The petitioner claimed that the requested data policies cannot constitute trade secrets; that the information sought pertains to the petitioner’s license plates and Town vehicles, which are contractually required to be collected; and that the cited exemptions do not apply to the GPS tracking for police vehicles.
DECIDED: The Petition’s claim regarding the data policies was considered moot because the Town provided the requested records. The Town violated FOIA with respect to the license plate information for the petitioner’s and Town’s vehicles by failing to meet its burden to demonstrate that this data was appropriately withheld under FOIA. However, the Town did not violate FOIA by withholding access to the GPS tracking information for its Town police vehicles, which is covered by the safety exemption in Section 10002(o)(17).
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Capital School District violated FOIA regarding a multi-part request for records related to a staffing vendor. The claims included: (1) the response was delayed; (2) the requested contracts were not provided due to an assumption made by the District; (3) the District failed to provide responsive records in its possession; (4) the District improperly used boilerplate language and duplicated responses; (5) the District failed to use widely accepted document production methods; and (6) the District improperly produced a record that was not part of the request with improper redactions.
DECIDED: The District violated FOIA by failing to provide the requested contracts and by failing to meet its burden to demonstrate it appropriately searched and produced responsive records. The remaining claims do not constitute FOIA violations.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City of Rehoboth Beach violated FOIA in responding to a request for multiple categories of records related to a City property’s building permit issue. The claims included: (1) the City’s response was untimely; (2) the response lacked a detailed factual explanation, affidavit, or index of withheld records; (3) the City misapplied the potential litigation exemption to this request; and (4) the City failed to segregate and produce non-exempt records.
DECIDED: The City did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records pursuant to the potential litigation exemption. Additionally, the remaining claims in the petition regarding the timeliness and adequacy of the City’s response to the request do not constitute violations of FOIA.
Read MoreDelaware's Governor
State Directory
Elected Officials
General Assembly
Delaware Courts
State Employees
Cities & Towns
Delaware State Code
State Regulations
Business First Steps
Phone Directory
Locations Directory
Delaware Public Meetings
Voting & Elections
Transparency
Choose Health DE
Tax Center
Personal Income Tax
Privacy Policy
Weather & Travel
Contact State Agencies
Corporations
Franchise Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Withholding Tax
Guides to Services
Help Center
Mobile Apps
E-mail / Text Alerts
Social Media
Built by the Government Information Center
©MMXXVI Delaware.gov
