Facts and Procedural History:

For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

On January 27, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Robert B. Anderson. Mr. Anderson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his rights to gain access to certain data maintained by Benton County and the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust (MCIT). MCIT is a joint powers organization, created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.59 and 471.981. Mr. Anderson enclosed copies of related correspondence. In subsequent communication with Mr. Anderson, PIPA informed him that two opinions would be issued in response to his request; one dealing with Benton County, the other with MCIT. (See Advisory Opinion 98-010.)

In response to Mr. Anderson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Rhyner, Director of MCIT. The purposes of this letter, dated February 3, 1998, were to inform Mr. Rhyner of Mr. Anderson's request, and to ask him or MCIT's attorney to provide information or support for its position. On February 27, 1998, PIPA received a response from Scott T. Anderson, attorney for MCIT and Benton County. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.

On November 27, 1997, Mr. R. Anderson wrote to MCIT requesting access to all pleadings and discovery materials, including all depositions, generated during a civil lawsuit involving the County, but not contained in the public court record. At the same time, he also requested those materials from Mr. S. Anderson. The lawsuit involved a former Benton County employee, and was settled in 1997. Mr. S. Anderson was hired by MCIT to represent the County.

Mr. S. Anderson responded to Mr. R. Anderson's request, on behalf of MCIT. In his response, Mr. S. Anderson stated: . . . the materials you request are not, within the opinion of MCIT, public documents. The data in issue constitutes either personnel data which is private under Section 13.43 of the Government Data Practices Act, materials privileged according to the attorney-client privilege, and/or materials that are not public under Section 13.30 of the Government Data Practices Act.

In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. S. Anderson wrote:

In regard to the documents maintained by Benton County in the file stemming from this claim, the fact that the claim is concluded does not determine the issue of whether the document [sic] constitute public data. Data can be classified as investigative data under 13.39 of the Data Practices Act and also be classified as private under other sections of the Data Practices Act or other laws. Minn. Stat. 13.39, subd. 3 states that those portions of a civil investigative file that are classified as not public data by this chapter or other law are not public. . . . . Section 13.03, subd. 4, makes it clear that you have to look at the classification of the data in the hands of the entity that disseminates the data to determine whether or not it is private, public, confidential, etc. Thus, and in that regard, the classification the documents in question have in the hands of Benton County would be the same for MCIT. . . . .

First and foremost, it is the position of the County that the documents in question constitute private personnel data on individuals. . . . . Specifically, the documents in question were collected because the plaintiff [was a County employee.] . . . . Only the information set forth under subd. 2 of 13.43 are public data.

The materials in question are replete with information not within the parameters of Minn. Stat. 13.43, subd. 2. Examples are the medical records and reports regarding [the plaintiff], information in the Answers to Interrogatories, portions of the deposition of [the plaintiff], the psychological reports on [the plaintiff]. . . . These documents are thus within the definition of personnel data. Perhaps not so clearly within the realm of that definition are things such as the Notice of Taking Depositions, Interrogatory Requests, and the Pre-Trial Notice, schedules, and orders. The fact is, however, that these documents were collected and maintained by the County due to the employment relationship that existed between it and [the plaintiff.] Thus, unless made public under subd. 2 of 13.43, they constitute private data.