This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

John Ramos, publisher of the Duluth Monitor (Monitor), asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Department of Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation’s (IRRR) response to the Monitor’s request for data made under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). The IRRR’s legal counsel provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.

The Monitor provided the following summary of facts:

On July 18, 2024, the Monitor submitted a data request to IRRR for:

(1) All emails which mention ‘Boathouse Bay’ for the period of March 1, 2024 through July 18, 2024;

(2) All emails to or from David Drown for the period March 1, 2024 through July 18, 2024;

(3) All emails to or from John Anderson for the period March 1, 2024 through July 18, 2024; and

(4) All of Chris Ismil’s emails for the period July 1, 2024 through July 18, 2024.

On September 8, 2024, the IRRR provided the Monitor with data responsive to its request, but the IRRR did not include documents attached to the requested emails as part of the responsive data.

On December 30, 2024, the Monitor contacted the IRRR to inform the agency that the email attachments were missing. The IRRR followed up with the Monitor on January 9, 2025, to ask for a list of email attachments that were missing, which the Monitor provided on January 13.

The Monitor sent further correspondence to the IRRR about the status of the requested emails but did not receive a response. The Monitor then requested assistance from Data Practices Office staff, who contacted the IRRR.

On March 7, 2025, the IRRR provided copies of several documents attached to emails. The IRRR also explained:

The agency is responding to your request to the best of our ability. Unfortunately our e-mail retention policy automatically deletes e-mails 45 days after receipt, unless saved by staff for their own reference. Thus attachments to deleted emails are deleted as well. This applies to the following attachments as numbered by you: 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,13,16,17,19, 20,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,31.

Issue:

Discussion:

Government data are defined as “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7.)

When a government entity receives a request from a requester who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable amount of time. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) If a government entity receives a data request that it believes is vague or ambiguous, the entity may need to contact the requester to seek clarification to ensure it can meet its obligations under the Data Practices Act to respond appropriately. (See, e.g., Advisory Opinions 03-026 and 14-006.) Further, a government entity shall permit a person to access public data upon request at reasonable times and places. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a).)

The Data Practices Act does not establish general retention periods for government data, with some exceptions. Rather, the Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, requires a government entity to create records that document its official activities. Under the Records Management Statute, Minnesota Statutes, section 138.17, official records must be kept for the length of time stated in the entity’s records retention schedule.

Government data that are transitory in nature and not part of an official record do not need to be maintained for any specific length of time, and a government entity may destroy transitory data at any time. However, the Commissioner has previously opined that if data exist when an individual requests access to those data, then the Data Practices Act requires the entity to provide access to the responsive data prior to destruction. (See Advisory Opinions 07-006 and 08-028.)

In its response to the Commissioner, the IRRR wrote:

While a state agency’s retention of official records is governed by statute and policy, state agencies do not generally have a blanket e-mail retention policy. The agency’s policy is to retain e-mails for 45 days, after which they are automatically deleted. However, many employees delete emails before the 45-day period. Employees may also save email messages in their work files....

...The issue here is whether the agency should have known that the Monitor was requesting every attachment to the provided e-mails.

The first data request appeared to focus on the Boathouse Bay project in Silver Bay, and specifically noted a request for e-mails, which were provided. The Monitor did not initially specify that it was also requesting email attachments. Upon receiving the requested data, the Monitor did not respond that the submission was incomplete and that attachments were missing. However, it waited almost four months before following up.

Additionally, when The Monitor did follow-up the request was so vague and broad that clarification was required. The initial request appeared to focus on the Boathouse Bay Project, however the request for attachments related to several different topics, some unrelated to the original request and some other attachments were referenced in the subject line, but not attached to the email itself.

The agency does not believe that it violated state statutes by not providing the email attachments. While the agency has a responsibility to maintain accurate records documenting its official activities, it is also the requestor’s responsibility to provide sufficient detail to enable the agency to fulfill the request. In this case, emails from a specific individual were requested and subsequently provided. Attachments were not requested until weeks later, and many of those later-requested attachments were unrelated to the Boathouse Bay Project.

The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that IRRR met its obligations under the Data Practices Act when responding to the Monitor’s data request.

Section 13.03, subd. 2(a) requires a government entity to have procedures to provide access to data it maintains in an appropriate manner upon receiving a data request. Here, the IRRR provided only a portion of data on September 8, 2024, that were responsive to the Monitor’s data request, which meant it did not provide a complete and appropriate response. The IRRR’s obligation was to provide access to all responsive data (i.e., the emails and attachments) that it maintained at the time of the Monitor’s request.

In its response, the IRRR suggested that the Monitor was not clear that its request for “all emails” also included data that were attached to those emails. However, documents attached to emails are part of the email itself. The attachments are responsive to a request for “all emails” in the same way that the data in an email subject line, the date and time the email was sent, and recipients of the email are responsive data in a request for “all emails.”

As a result, it was unreasonable for the IRRR to interpret the Monitor’s request for “all emails” to exclude data attached to those emails. Moreover, if the IRRR was uncertain whether the Monitor’s initial request for “all emails” also included the attachments to emails, then the IRRR should have sought clarification from the Monitor to ensure it could provide an appropriate response to the data request.

Further, the IRRR employed technology that automatically deleted its emails after 45 days. This technology destroyed data that were responsive at the time of the Monitor’s data request, and it was no longer possible for the IRRR to remedy its initial failure to provide the Monitor with all data it had requested.

The Commissioner agrees that some of the Monitor’s concerns may have been avoided if it had followed up with the IRRR about the missing data shortly after receiving a response on September 8. Nonetheless, this fact does not alter the IRRR’s obligation under the Data Practices Act to have procedures that ensures it responds fully to data requests and provides access to all responsive data before the destruction of those data.

Therefore, the IRRR did not respond appropriately to the Monitor’s request for emails it had maintained because it failed to provide all responsive data to the Monitor’s request. It was then unable to remedy the situation because several email attachments were automatically destroyed prior to the IRRR providing the Monitor with access to those data.

The Commissioner has a final note about auto-delete email retention policies. These types of automatic data deletion tools are not prohibited by the Data Practices Act. However, all government entities have obligations under the Official Records Act and Records Management Statute to create and retain records documenting their official activities. As noted above, government entities are also obligated to provide access to data that are responsive to a data request before any destruction.

The Commissioner encourages government entities that use technology to automatically delete emails to establish appropriate procedures that allow them to identify and retain email data responsive to a pending data request as well as any official records that may be contained in emails prior to any deletion. These procedures can help ensure government data and official records are not inadvertently destroyed in violation of the Data Practices Act, Official Records Act, or Records Management Statute.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:

The Department of Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation did not respond appropriately to a request for government data maintained in emails because it did not provide all data that were responsive to the request.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

June 30, 2025