Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to respond within ten working days.

Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, a parent may gain access to private data about his/her minor child.

In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Porter wrote:

The District acknowledges a De minimis failure to comply in a timely manner with the request of [X], however, the measure of non-compliance should be from [X's] letter dated July 2, 2004...not [X's] letter dated March 2, 2004...

Following receipt of [X's] request for documentation of 'all legal fees and expenses spent in a manner pertaining to my [child]' on March 2, 2004, in a letter dated March 11, 2004...the District provided a summary of legal fees and expenses indicating a total expenditure of $50, 481.37. In addition, in this same letter the District stated, 'If you would like additional information regarding this matter I can provide the actual bills received, but I will have to take the time to redact any and all attorney-client privileged information contained therein.' The District received no further correspondence from [X] until [X's] letter of July 2, 2004.

On or about August 17, 2004, in response to [X's] request of July 2nd, the District provided a complete copy of legal fees and expenses...The District did experience delays in the provision of this data due primarily to summer vacation schedules and time necessary to review the data provided as to inclusion of attorney-client privileged information. Due to the unintended delays the District did not seek any reimbursement or costs associated with the data.

In previous opinions with similar facts, the Commissioner has opined that when a data subject seeks data about him/herself, the entity, within ten working days, must either provide the data or inform the requestor that the data do not exist. Here, in a letter dated March 2, 2004, X requested access to certain data from the District. Although it is not clear whether X was asking to inspect or to obtain copies, X stated that s/he was making the request in accordance with Chapter 13. Thus, the District's obligation was to attempt to clarify whether X wanted to inspect or obtain copies and then to make the data available for X to inspect or provide X with copies of the data within ten days. However, Mr. Porter's response was to review the data himself and provide X with a total dollar expenditure amount. This was not an appropriate or timely response to X's request.

An additional note is in order. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Porter noted that attached to an August 17, 2004, letter to X from the District were detailed billing statements provided by the School District's legal counsel for services rendered to defend the School district in the special education due process hearing [X] requested to contest [X's child's] IEP. Regardless of whether these data are responsive to X's March 2, 2004, request - and the Commissioner does not know - X made it clear in the July 2, 2004, letter that s/he wanted to review (inspect) the data, not obtain copies of the data. If X still wishes to inspect the data s/he requested on July 2, 2004, the District promptly should arrange a time for X to do so.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: September 16, 2004