North Dakota attorney general clears the City of Mandan in open records case involving blocked email request from resident
Mandan, North Dakota – A dispute over an open records request in North Dakota has been resolved after the state’s top legal office determined that the City of Mandan did not violate public records law when it failed to respond to an email it never received.
North Dakota Attorney General Drew H. Wrigley issued a formal opinion following a request from resident S. Paul Jordan, who questioned whether the city failed to respond within a reasonable time as required under state law. The case centered on whether the City of Mandan violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 after Jordan submitted a request by email and did not receive a reply.
Background of the request and city response
According to the facts presented, Jordan sent an email on September 11, 2023, to the city’s general email account requesting “a copy of all code enforcement related records on my home … for the month of May of 2023.” He also asked the city to confirm if no records existed and to provide any legal basis for withholding information.
However, no response was issued at the time. Weeks later, on October 5, 2023, Jordan formally asked the Attorney General’s Office to review the situation and determine whether the city had failed to meet its legal obligations.
The City of Mandan later explained that it never received the email because Jordan’s address had been placed on a blocked list. City officials stated that the decision to block the address was made years earlier due to what they described as a high volume of email requests.
Prior notice and alternative options
Central to the Attorney General’s analysis was a certified letter sent by the city to Jordan on February 27, 2015. In that letter, the city informed him that it “will no longer respond to record requests made via email.” The city also made clear that it would still accept requests through other means, including in person or in writing.
Records show that Jordan received the letter the following day, confirming that he had been notified of the change in how the city would handle his requests.
Despite that notice, Jordan continued to submit requests by email. Because of the block, the city did not receive the September 2023 request. After the Attorney General’s Office contacted the city regarding the complaint, officials later responded on December 29, 2023, stating that no records were found that matched the request.
Legal analysis and final determination
In reviewing the case, the Attorney General’s Office focused on whether the city had a duty to respond to a request it did not receive. State law generally requires public entities to provide access to records, but only when a valid request has been received.
The opinion made clear that “public entities cannot respond to requests they did not receive.” It further explained that “An unreceived open records request creates no more of an obligation to respond than does a request that is never sent or communicated.”
While open records requests do not always need to be made in person or in writing, the law does not require government entities to accept requests through email if they have provided notice and alternative methods.
The opinion also referenced a prior situation involving the same requester, noting that agencies are allowed to set limits on how they receive requests as long as those limits are clearly communicated and reasonable options remain available.
Conclusion of the Attorney General
After reviewing the facts, the Attorney General concluded that the City of Mandan acted within the law. Because Jordan had been notified years earlier that email requests would not be accepted and was given other ways to submit requests, the city had no obligation to respond to the blocked email.
The final conclusion stated that the City of Mandan did not violate N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18, as it “had no obligation to respond to a request that it did not receive.”
The decision closes the matter, reinforcing that while public access to records is protected, requesters must follow the accepted methods established by public entities when those methods have been clearly communicated.
