Advertisement

April 16, 2014

Indiana Court Requires More Specificity for Public Records Requests Seeking E-Mail

In an important case limiting how persons may probe e-mails maintained by political subdivisions, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that state law requires those seeking access to public e-mail must provide the details of what type of e-mail they are seeking.  This holding could alleviate some of the burdens on cities, towns and counties who must produce public records, as it prevents what the Court described as "fishing expeditions" into public employees' e-mails without any meaningful restrictions on time or subject matter.

In Anderson v. Huntington County Commissioners , the Court of Appeals determined that a person seeking public records under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) must meet the statute's requirement that a request be "reasonably particular" as to what it seeks.  If a request does not satisfy this standard, the Court held that a political subdivision may deny the request outright.

Critically, the Court determined that a request for e-mail is not "reasonably particular" if it simply seeks all e-mail sent by or to a particular government employee, even if the request is limited to particular dates.  When a request for e-mail is this broad, the political subdivision is within its right to simply deny it.  By way of illustration, however, the Court suggested that a request might satisfy the "reasonably particular" requirement if it was limited to e-mails between two specific people over a limited period of time.

The decision could prove to be beneficial to cities, towns and counties that must bear the burden of carrying out the commands of the APRA.  The Anderson case itself proves a cautionary tale, as the county's attempt to comply with the request involved hours of lost time by the county IT department, the purchase of new software to retrieve more than 9,500 emails, and even more lost productivity by those county employees who were required to review the e-mails and redact sensitive information, such as social security numbers. 

In a second important holding in the Anderson case, the Court rejected an attempt by the plaintiff to force the county to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.  The APRA requires a political subdivision to pay attorneys' fees to a plaintiff who "substantially prevails" when bringing a lawsuit to compel the political subdivision to produce public records. The county in the Anderson case agreed to voluntarily produce the public records after the plaintiff sued. The plaintiff claimed that he "prevailed" in the lawsuit because he obtained the result he wanted (the production of the documents) even though the trial court and, ultimately, the Court of Appeals ruled against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and held instead that the plaintiff could not obtain fees because he had lost on the actual merits of his lawsuit. 

© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Mark J Crandley, Litigation, Attorney, Barnes Thornburg, law firm
Partner

Mark Crandley is a partner in the Litigation Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis, Indiana office. Mr. Crandley has a diverse practice that concentrates on appeals, municipal and constitutional law, employee benefits, probate and guardianship matters as well as general commercial litigation.

317-261-7924

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other P