March 19, 1998; Benton County
3/19/1998 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
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). 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 98-011.) In response to Mr. Anderson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael Jesse, Benton County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated February 3, 1998, were to inform Mr. Jesse of Mr. Anderson's request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. On February 27, 1998, PIPA received a response from Scott T. Anderson, attorney for Benton County and MCIT. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. On November 27, 1997, Mr. R. Anderson wrote to Mr. Jesse and two other County officials, 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 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 Benton County. In his response, Mr. S. Anderson stated: . . . the materials you request are not, within the opinion of the County, 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. . . . . 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. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anderson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The data in question were collected as part of the County's defense of a civil legal action, which was subsequently dismissed when the parties agreed to a settlement. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39, subdivision 3, provides that, in general, inactive civil investigative data are public, except for those portions of a civil investigative file that are classified as not public data by this chapter or other law. Any civil investigative data presented as evidence in court or made part of a court record shall be public. However, according to Mr. R. Anderson, the discovery materials he sought were not made a part of the public court record. The Commissioner is proceeding with the assumption that Mr. R. Anderson is correct. If that is not the case, this opinion might contain a different result. Pursuant to Section 13.43, data on an individual that were collected because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity, such as Benton County, are personnel data. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain specific personnel data are public, and all other personnel data are private. From the information provided, it appears that most of the data on individuals in question do not fall within the descriptions of public personnel data provided under subdivision 2 of Section 13.43. A possible exception would be if any of the data document the basis for any final disciplinary action taken against a County employee. However, that does not appear to be the case. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4, most of the data in question appear to be private. There are, however, some documents described in the list provided by Mr. S. Anderson that appear to be data not on individuals (see Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) Entry Number 43 describes the documents as follows: Plaintiff's response to [Defendant] Request for Production of Documents. Includes documents turned over; the policies for Benton County, Benton County New Employee Handbook, Job Classification and Description, Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination Policy, . . . . From that description, those documents are either data not on individuals, or do not appear to contain private personnel data. These data are public. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anderson is as follows:
Signed: Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: March 19, 1998 |
