The Exemption model provides a list of individual exemption cases along with some example appeal language.

GET /api_v1/exemption/
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, POST, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "count": 212,
    "next": "https://www.muckrock.com/api_v1/exemption/?page=2",
    "previous": null,
    "results": [
        {
            "id": 1,
            "name": "Vague and Unduly Burdensome",
            "slug": "vague-and-unduly-burdensome",
            "jurisdiction": 10,
            "basis": "Under  5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), also known as vague and burdensome, agencies are only required to process requests that \"reasonably describe\" the records in question.\r\n\r\n This standard was upheld in <a href=\"http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/620/19/1456396/\">Hudgins v. IRS, 620 F. Supp. 19 (D.D.C. 1985)</a>.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 138,
                    "language": "I would like to appeal the letter I received  saying that my FOIA request \"is too broad in scope or did not specifically identify the records which you are seeking.\"\r\n\r\nI believe that I very narrowly constructed my request to a limited number of records that would relate to the stated subject. It is inappropriate for this agency to issue such a letter so quickly after receiving the request.\r\n\r\nPlease instruct the FOIA officers to complete a search for records before making such a determination.",
                    "context": ""
                },
                {
                    "id": 1,
                    "language": "The requirement to \"reasonably describe\" applies only to the search phase. The difficult of reviewing and redacting, even for \"voluminous\" responsive documents, is irrelevant to the threshold question of whether a request is \"reasonably described\".\r\n\r\nDoJ FOIA Update, Vol. IV, No. 3, at 5:\r\n\r\n\"The sheer size or burdensomeness of a FOIA request, in and of itself, does not entitle an agency to deny that request on the ground that it does not 'reasonably describe' records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). That provision in the FOIA was intended to ensure that a FOIA request description \"be sufficient [to enable] a professional employee of the agency who was familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the record with a reasonable amount of effort.\" H.R. Rep. No. 93-876, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1974). See also S. Rep. No. 93-854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1974) (\"[T]he identification standard should not be used to obstruct public access to agency records.\"); Bristol-Meyers Co. v. FTC, 424 F.2d 935, 938 (D.C. Cir.), cert.denied, 400 U.S. 824 (1970).\"",
                    "context": "Occasionally agencies might say that because a request is voluminous, the request is not reasonably defined. This may not be the case: Requests may be broad, as long as they are well defined."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/exemption/vague-and-unduly-burdensome-1/"
        },
        {
            "id": 2,
            "name": "b6",
            "slug": "b6",
            "jurisdiction": 10,
            "basis": "5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), Information involving matters of personal privacy, such as personnel and medical files",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 2,
                    "language": "No proof of death is required if an individual is over 100 years old.",
                    "context": "Situations in which the subject is over 100 years old."
                },
                {
                    "id": 3,
                    "language": "This is a public figure whose death was widely publicized.",
                    "context": "A deceased public figure"
                },
                {
                    "id": 4,
                    "language": "I have attached the permission form.",
                    "context": "A living person who has given permission on the proper form."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/exemption/b6-2/"
        },
        {
            "id": 3,
            "name": "Personal Information exemption",
            "slug": "personal-information-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 168,
            "basis": "5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c) is more commonly referred to as the personal information exemption. To be able to invoke this exemption an agency must be able to prove that the request represents a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” What this means is that the record must be “highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject's right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information.” This can be hard for an agency to prove, [as one appeal to the state’s Public Access Counselor shows](http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2015/15-009.pdf). Concerning a video of a traffic stop before a fatal accident occurred involving a pedestrian and a tractor trailer, the deceased’s lawyer appealed the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for rejecting their FOIA request for the video tape on the grounds of 7(1)(c). The Public Access Counselor rejected IDOT’s use of the exemption due to the deceased not having rights of privacy regarding FOIA, and the contents of the video not being graphic or even showing the accident at all, negating the argument that it would violate members of the deceased’s family’s rights to privacy. Clearly the Counselor confirmed, the right of the public to know the conditions of the traffic stop far outweighed any rights to privacy that existed.\r\n\r\nAnother example of the rights of the public besting the personal information exemption is a [2010 request for incidents of harassment between October 1993 and 1995 reported to the Champaign, IL Police Department](http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/PAC/q/11594%20preauth%20al%20dl%2071c%20sus%20priv%20pd.pdf). The PD initially denied the request using 7(1)(c), but the Public Access Counselor determined that there is legitimate public interest and a right to know how police respond to harassment reports and thus ordered that documents be released while also ordering a redaction of the victim’s identity, and the identity of suspects that were not charged. \r\n\r\nIt is important in an appeal of the personal information exemption to be able to prove that the public’s interest is  greater than any damage to an individual that would come of the documents being released. What this means is that one can often get the Public Access Counselor to demand the offending agency to release the documents with personal information such as birth dates redacted, as [we see in an appeal of a police report being redacted due to birth dates being included](http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/PAC/b/7959%20pre-auth%20al%207(1)(c)%20dob%20pd.pdf). The Counselor simply ordered the birth date and other sensitive personal information redacted and the rest of the report released. A balance can often be struck between releasing records that are highly pertinent to the public, while also protecting individuals right to personal information.",
            "example_appeals": [],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/illinois/exemption/personal-information-exemption-3/"
        },
        {
            "id": 4,
            "name": "Preliminary Drafts exemption",
            "slug": "preliminary-drafts-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 168,
            "basis": "5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f) is also known as the preliminary drafts exemption. The stated purpose of the exemption is to prevent “ “Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated,” from being disseminated to the public before employees of a given agency can fully form their policy or project. This is a commonly invoked exemption, and federally it has been more clearly defined in court cases like Hoffman v. Illinois as protecting the “give and take” of the decision making process. An important exception to the preliminary drafts exemptions is explained as, “a specific record or relevant portion of a record shall not be exempt when the record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. This “extends to all those records or officers and agencies of the General Assembly that pertain to the preparation of legislative documents.” \r\n\r\nCases such as Hoffman v. Illinois have been key in highlighting the potential appeal arguments one could use to fight a denial under the exemption. In Hoffman v. Illinois the records that had been requested from the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) were not in fact preliminary as the IDOC had claimed, but instead the final documents. In an [appeal](http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2015/15-015.pdf) from 2015 we see this again, with a requester asking for a powerpoint presentation from the Governor’s Office of Management. Once the Public Access Counselor was able to see the powerpoint presentation for herself, it once again turned out to be the final form of the presentation, and the GOMB was cited for improperly invoking 7(1)(f). \r\n\r\nAnother possible appeal avenue is illustrated through a 2013 appeal of a [denied request](http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2013/13-015.pdf) for uniform crime statistics from the Illinois State Police (ISP). The ISP denied the request under the preliminary drafts exemption due to their charge that the statistics were not yet confirmed accurate and thus “preliminary drafts.”  In response to the appeal of denial, the Public Access Counselor cited language from Watkins v. McCarthy that determined that factual information is not exemptible under 7(1)(f) unless it is “inextricably intertwined” with the deliberative discussions. The  Counselor ordered the ISP to release the statistics due to the fact there were absolutely zero deliberative qualities concerning the information requested, which was simply hard data concerning crime figures.\r\n\r\nIn order to fight a denial invoking the preliminary draft exemption one must be able to prove one of the three things. The most obvious solution is clearly the exception. If the record requested has been publicly discussed by the head of the agency or otherwise referenced publicly. If this is not the case, it may simply be that the documents are not actually preliminary and are in their final form. This is a common occurrence with strong legal precedents and is likely to be the best chance at fighting the denial. The other argument with clout is the statistics exception. There is again undeniable legal evidence that hard data like statistics are not a part of any decision making process, and cannot be denied under 7(1)(f).",
            "example_appeals": [],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/illinois/exemption/preliminary-drafts-exemption-4/"
        },
        {
            "id": 5,
            "name": "Private Information exemption",
            "slug": "private-information-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 168,
            "basis": "7(1)(b) is commonly referred to as the Private Information exemption. This exemption holds all private information exemptible except in cases where, “disclosure is required by another provision of this Act, a State or federal law, or a court order.” Private information is best defined using the language within the Illinois FOIA itself. “Private information means unique identifiers—such as a person's social security number, driver's license number, employee identification number, biometric identifiers, personal financial information, passwords or other access codes, medical records, home or personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses. Private information also includes home address and personal license plates, except as otherwise provided by law or when compiled without possibility of attribution to any person.”  5 ILCS 140/2(c-5). It can also apply to  “files, documents, and other data or databases maintained by one or more law enforcement agencies and specifically designed to provide information to one or more law enforcement agencies regarding the physical or mental status of one or more individual subjects.” \r\n\r\n In order to successfully appeal a denial under 7(1)(b), it is best to start by looking at the precedents set by two of the most important court cases concerning the exemption. In Bowie v. Evanston Cmty. Consol. School Dist. the Illinois Appellate Court, First Judicial District ruled that school districts must comply with requests for data concerning test results if they are able to scramble and otherwise mask the information to protect the privacy rights of the students. In another case, Southern Illinoisan v. Department of Public Health, the court ordered the release of medical documents to a newspaper due to the information in question not exposing any patients names.\r\n\r\n In a [2011 appeal](http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2011/11-006.pdf) a reporter for The News Gazette requested \"all electronic communications, including cellphone text messages, sent and received by members of the city council and the mayor during city council meetings and study sessions since ( and including) May 3,” from the City of Champaign, IL. Having had his request denied under the Private Information exemption citing the 1991 case Quinn v. Stone that stated emails and text messages on private computers are not public information subject to FOIA, he appealed to the Public Access Counselor. Michael Luke, the counselor handing the case, arrived at the “opposite conclusion” from Quinn v Stone. The City of Champaign was ordered to release the documents from the private devices due to records not belonging to the councilmen, but instead to the City, since they were generated during official government proceedings. \r\n\r\nIf the data requested can be easily redacted to withhold private information leaking out, or if the information in question clearly pertains to official government business, the chances for a successful appeal are much greater. If the data is inextricably linked to individuals’ private information, then there is little chance for success. Therefore it is important to understand fully what documents you are requesting if appealing an invocation of the private information exemption.",
            "example_appeals": [],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/illinois/exemption/private-information-exemption-5/"
        },
        {
            "id": 6,
            "name": "Communications with Attorney or Auditor exemption",
            "slug": "communications-with-attorney-or-auditor-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 168,
            "basis": "7(1)(m), also known as the Communications with Attorney or Auditor exemption, is defined as, “Communications between a public body and an attorney, or an auditor representing the public body-- but only if the communications would not be subject to discovery in litigation.” Records concerning internal audits of agencies, or by attorney request, records dealing with preparation for a criminal, civil or administrative proceedings, are also exempt. The case Illinois Education Association v. State Board of Education established that the State Board lacked attorney client privilege and was not subject.\r\n\r\n\r\nWhen contemplating an appeal of a 7(1)(m) invocation the case Ulrich v. Stukel is highly relevant. The case set the precedent that \"It is well-recognized that information regarding a client's fees generally is not a 'confidential communication' between an attorney and client, and thus is not protected by the attorney client privilege.” While an explanation of the fees could result in a breach of attorney-client privilege, if the explanations are redacted, or not present, fees are not exempt. Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank is also quite relevant. In this case it was held that “not all communications between attorney and client are privileged. Our decisions have recognized that the identity of the client, the amount of the fee, the identification of payment by case-file, and the general purpose of the work performed are not usually protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege.”\r\n\r\n\r\n A [2015 appeal](http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2015/15-010.pdf) from a Chicago Reader reporter contesting the Governor’s Office right to invoke 7(1)(m) is also relevant. The request was for a list or a database of outside counsel used by the State of Illinois in 2013 to 2015, what agencies received the work, and what general purpose the work filled. The Governor’s Office maintained it had no obligation to fulfill the request due to the description of the work violating privilege. Using legal precedents, especially Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank, the Public Access Counselor found that the Governor’s Office had improperly cited 7(1)(m) and instructed them to turn over all responsive documents. Their reasoning was that the Office had failed to demonstrate that there were any specific details of work provided, litigation strategy, or motive for seeking representation in the documents requested that would violate attorney-client privilege. \r\n\r\n\r\nAn appeal of 7(1)(m) must be centered on proving that no breach of attorney-client privilege would result from disclosure of the documents. Luckily, there are several cases that have set precedents regarding this exact discussion. If one can prove that the information requested isn’t asking for specifics of communication or work rendered between attorney and client, 7(1)(m) will not be upheld as a valid reason for withholding documents.",
            "example_appeals": [],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/illinois/exemption/communications-with-attorney-or-auditor-exemption-6/"
        },
        {
            "id": 7,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 10,
            "basis": "In these cases, no basis is provided. A rejection of this sort occurs when no response is received from the agency in the statutorily-allotted amount of time or if the response received does not include \"the agency's determination of whether or not to comply with the request [and] the reasons for its decision.\"",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 211,
                    "language": "To Whom It May Concern,\r\n\r\nOn [Date Here], I submitted the below request under the Freedom of Information Act.\r\n\r\nDespite my correspondence (also included below), I have received no acknowledgement of my request and it has not been given a final determination nor have I been furnished an estimated completion date.\r\n\r\nAs twenty working days have elapsed without a substantive determination, I am appealing the constructive denial of my request, and asking for a determination that the agency must respond to my request, providing the documents or outlining reasons that they are exempt.\r\n\r\nBest,",
                    "context": "A sample appeal for requests that have not been acknowledged after the 20 working day limit."
                },
                {
                    "id": 210,
                    "language": "To Whom It May Concern,\r\n\r\nOn [Date Here], I submitted the below request under the Freedom of Information Act.\r\n\r\nThe agency acknowledged receipt of this request and assigned it [ Request No. #### ]  on [Date Here]. As of this writing, the request has not been given a final determination nor have I been furnished an estimated completion date for this request.\r\n\r\nAs twenty working days have elapsed without a substantive determination, I am appealing the constructive denial of my request, and asking for a determination that the agency must respond to my request, providing the documents or outlining reasons that they are exempt.\r\n\r\nBest,",
                    "context": "A sample appeal for requests that have been acknowledged but the agency has not completed nor provided an estimated completion date after the 20 working day limit."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/exemption/constructive-denial-7/"
        },
        {
            "id": 8,
            "name": "b1",
            "slug": "b1",
            "jurisdiction": 10,
            "basis": "5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), Classified national defense and foreign relations information\r\n\r\n**What that means:** Classified national defense and foreign relations information. Spy and/or military stuff, mostly.\r\n\r\n**What you can do about it:** Depends on how recent the docs are. If it's anywhere near the vicinity of this decade, you're probably out of luck. If it's on the older side, you might have a case for a [Mandatory Declassification Review](https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/foia-tip-8%E2%80%94mandatory-declassification-review/). \r\n\r\n**Any other resources?** The consistently excellent folks over at [National Security Archive](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/) have a great guide on [how and when to file an MDR](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/pages/foia_guide_chapter4.pdf) - there's even a flowchart! Speaking of the NSA(rchive), Friend of MuckRock [Nate Jones](https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2016/feb/19/requesters-voice-nate-jones/) has [an entire book](https://www.amazon.com/Able-Archer-83-Exercise-Triggered/dp/1620972611) on his decade plus efforts to get records declassified that comes highly recommended. Also, check out [our interview with Jason Leopold](https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2013/jul/12/jason-leopold-foia-terrorist-shares-his-transparen/), which has some solid pointers on MDRs.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 5,
                    "language": "This information is over 25 years old, I hereby request a Mandatory Declassification Review, as this material no longer meets the standards for classification.",
                    "context": "Material that is over 25 years old, and therefore no longer properly classified under [Executive Order 12958](https://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html)"
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/exemption/b1-8/"
        },
        {
            "id": 9,
            "name": "Security Threats exemption",
            "slug": "security-threats-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 168,
            "basis": "Referred to as the Security Threats exemption, 7(1)(v) deals with “vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent or respond to potential attacks upon a community's systems, population, facilities, or installations.” Also covered by the exemption are records dealing with “mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment, the operation of communication systems or protocols, or tactical operations.” That doesn’t mean necessarily that those documents aren’t possible to receive. The application of the Security Threats exemption is limited to “when destruction or contamination would constitute a clear and present danger to the health or safety of the community, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of the measures or the safety of the public or the personnel who implement the security measures.” \r\n\r\n\r\nTo successfully appeal a denial under the Security Threats exemption, one must prove that the records requested do not in fact present any real danger to the public or law enforcement if disclosed. In 2010 a reporter with The Chicago Tribune filed a request with the Chicago Police Department (CPD) for the number of officers in each district and was denied under 7(1)(b). He [appealed](http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2011/11-002.pdf) arguing that figures concerning the number of officers in given districts put no limitations on security measures and that the CPD misunderstood the exemption itself which, \"[ b] y its terms, . . . is limited to situations where destruction or contamination of facilities would cause a clear and present danger to public health.\" Due to the CPD not being able to prove that disclosing the documents would have any bearings on security measures to structures in the city or security measures used by the Department, the Public Access Counselor ordered the documents released. \r\n\r\nIf you come across any court cases concerning agencies invoking 7(1)(v) in Illinois let us know by shooting us an e-mail at info@muckrock.com",
            "example_appeals": [],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/illinois/exemption/security-threats-exemption-9/"
        },
        {
            "id": 10,
            "name": "Personnel Exemption",
            "slug": "personnel-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 1,
            "basis": "This exemption allows agencies to withhold \"internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding.\"\r\nThis exemption is meant to protect agencies from being overwhelmed by gathering and producing information that the public cannot reasonably be expected to have an interest in, because it is related only to the internal functions of a government agency. The information may be withheld if its disclosure would impede the function and \"proper performance\" of the agency. The term \"proper performance\" makes the Massachusetts exemption more narrow than the federal FOIA, and is wide open for interpretation. You can expect agencies and their lawyers to take full advantage of this. \r\nRecords custodians in Massachusetts are required to demonstrate how their government agency's function and proper performance would be hindered by the release of the information requested, and while you can't force them to be as specific as you'd like them to be, you can outline the level of specificity you expect in your request. If you're still not satisfied with the response you receive, another course of action would be to request an in camera inspection of the requested documents by the Supervisor of Records.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 6,
                    "language": "Exemption b is meant to shield government agencies from the burden of searching for and producing documents that cannot reasonably be said to be of interest to the public. Due to the subject's position as a public employee, I believe there is a legitimate and undeniable public interest in the production of the documents requested.  \r\nExemption b further states that documents are to be withheld \"only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding.\" If you are asserting that releasing information related to employee misconduct would impede the ability of your agency to function and perform properly, please explain in specific detail how this is so. \r\nI believe that employee misconduct itself is likely to have a negative impact on on the agency's functionality and performance, and that holding the employee accountable publicly would ultimately have a positive effect on the agency's performance.",
                    "context": "Your request was rejected based on the notion that any records related to personnel are exempt from disclosure under exemption b."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/massachusetts/exemption/personnel-exemption-10/"
        },
        {
            "id": 11,
            "name": "Trade Secrets exemption",
            "slug": "trade-secrets-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 236,
            "basis": "This exemption deals with trade secrets. In order to be defined as a trade secret the document must be “commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is of a privileged or confidential nature,” and which “if it falls into a rival’s hands will cause serious competitive disadvantage.” \r\n\r\nIn order to successfully appeal this exemption there are a few things that must be explained. It matters if the information requested was released to the agency voluntarily or if it was required the company disclose the information. If it was a voluntarily release of records it is exemptible if the records are not generally made available to the public. This is proved through the defendant’s customary handling of the documents, not the industry standard. If it is a required release of records, it is exemptible if it would render future efforts by the government to obtain the records more difficult, or it would do serious competitive harm. If the information is typically released to the public it shouldn’t be difficult to prove that it will not do serious competitive damage. If it is a request for gross receipts, inventory or other basic financial document releases it is not likely to be exempted. \r\n  \r\nFurthermore, internal documents are not automatically exempted either. Internal managerial reviews and comments whether by or to management, and other internal documents relating to the performance of a company, with regard to the public, has precedent to be released. Documents such as settlement agreements are also considered public records in many cases. In Delaware there is legal precedent for not allowing a document’s creator to mark a document exempt because internally the entity had decided it was confidential.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 8,
                    "language": "n/a",
                    "context": "Here a request for a Management Review document sent by Dingle & Kane accounting firm to Camden-Wyoming Sewer and Water Authority was denied due to CWSWA's assertion that it was Dingle & Kane's privacy they were protecting.\r\n\r\nThe AG did not find their reasoning to be grounds for withholding a document. It is not up to any entity to decide what is confidential, only the law. Furthermore, the document was not commercial or financial but a comment sent by an accounting firm about ways to better manage systems and data. There were no potential competition disadvantages or privacy issues. The documents were ordered disclosed."
                },
                {
                    "id": 7,
                    "language": "n/a",
                    "context": "In this appeal a requester asked for monetary amounts that top phone companies had payed to the Department of Technology and Information's Delaware Broadband Fund. The request was denied due to AT&T, Sprint and Verizon deeming the information confidential and commercially sensitive. \r\n   The Attorney General disagreed, finding that the fact that most other phone companies requested furnished the data with no questions and that no serious competitive disadvantages could be created through release of such basic financial information as gross receipts involving a companies dealings in a certain state. \r\n    \r\nPrecedents set by the rest of the industry is not in itself a great stand alone argument against this exemption as by law it cannot hold up as reasoning itself. Here however, it acts as further evidence that the information requested is not a grave threat to competition but instead standard information that should be public knowledge. This is usually the best tack for this exemption. Agencies must be very careful about being able to back up if the documents can actually constitute a competitive disadvantage in the industry.\r\n \r\nIt is also important to remember here that neither companies nor agencies can decide on what is confidential information. It still must be held up to the language of the law."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/delaware/exemption/trade-secrets-exemption-11/"
        },
        {
            "id": 12,
            "name": "Personnel Files exemption",
            "slug": "personnel-files-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 236,
            "basis": "This is the exemption in the Delaware FOIA dealing with personnel files. “Any personnel, medical or pupil file, the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, under this legislation or under any State or federal law as it relates to personal privacy,” may be exempted using 10002(I)(1). There are some important legal requirements that a personnel files exemption must meet under Delaware law.\r\n\r\nFirst, Delaware handles personal privacy by the definition that someone’s affairs publicized if there is no “legitimate public concern.” Privacy is not an absolute right in Delaware. It also matters how an agency received the personal information requested. If the information was required to be given to the agency it likely is covered by 10002(I)(1). If it was voluntarily given up, there is a greater chance it is not covered. It is also important to consider the purpose of the request. If it is governmental oversight in the form of a media request or other for-the-public- good purposes, then it has a decent chance of outweighing any privacy concerns. \r\n\r\nConstitutionally the right to privacy does not always extend to name and address like the protection against search and seizure does. This does not cover individuals who give private information to government agencies voluntarily. The right to anonymity in political speech does not always cover these exemptions either. The agency must be able to prove that disclosing names and addresses of citizens who signed certain referenda would open them up to significant amounts of harassment, threats, or reprisals.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 9,
                    "language": "n/a",
                    "context": "This request to the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) was for public comments regarding the US 113 North-South study. Initially the agency furnished the comments but redacted all names and personal information of the commenters. The requester appealed to the AG for the unredacted documents. \r\n\r\nThe AG decided that the unredacted documents be released to the requester due to the public optionally commenting, personal information being clearly optionally given, and the sentence, “Under state law, this form is public domain, and if requested, a copy of it must be provided to the media or public.” The AG also noted that the subject matter of the referenda, roads, was highly unlikely to result in any harassment, reprisals, or threats to commenters. This case is a good display of the potential appeal routes to personnel files exemption."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/delaware/exemption/personnel-files-exemption-12/"
        },
        {
            "id": 13,
            "name": "Pending Litigation exemption",
            "slug": "pending-litigation-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 236,
            "basis": "Exemption (I)(9) deals with pending litigation. Courts in Delaware have developed a two part test to see if a pending litigation exemption will hold up. First there must be likely or reasonably foreseeable litigation that would result from a release of documents. Second, there must be a clear relationship between the documents requested and the subject of potential litigation. For this exemption to hold up an agency must be able to provide tangible proof that a party is threatening to sue and that they have retained counsel for the purpose of doing so. This is because without very clear objective qualifications, this exemption might affect far too many requests, as government work can often be controversial and thus the subject of litigation down the line.\r\n\r\n\r\nUses of (I)(9) should be limited to cases where a party is using FOIA to gain information (discovery in legal terms) that would help their case in court. If the request does not touch on information that one is planning to use in litigation, and there is no proof that litigation is pending in anyway, then there is a good chance to win the appeal.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 11,
                    "language": "n/a",
                    "context": "This case illustrates that even though there may be real pending litigation, just because someone requests documents on the subject matter if they are not planning on using the information in a lawsuit themselves then it is not to be exempted under FOIA."
                },
                {
                    "id": 10,
                    "language": "n/a",
                    "context": "This case reveals how one can successfully appeal this exemption. A request for documents relating to a controversial water system in Wilmington, DE resulted in a denial under (I)(9). In response to the appeal, the AG could not find tangible, documented proof that the requester had any actualy intent to sue. The AG highlights very nicely how exacting the agencies proof must be that litigation is pending to use this exemption. It is intended to be a very narrow exemption."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/delaware/exemption/pending-litigation-exemption-13/"
        },
        {
            "id": 14,
            "name": "Agency Requires Portal",
            "slug": "agency-requires-portal",
            "jurisdiction": 10,
            "basis": "A federal agency states that it  requires the user to submit a request via its online portal.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 12,
                    "language": "Thank you very much for your note and your suggestion that we use the agency's online portal for our request and future requests.\r\n\r\nHowever, we decline to make use of FOIAonline because it is less convenient for us.\r\n\r\nRather, we will ask that you process our request, and follow the rules and procedures of this agency's regulations, which do not specify that the agency will accept not accept requests by email.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/exemption/agency-requires-portal-14/"
        },
        {
            "id": 15,
            "name": "Resubmit with Form/Letterhead/Etc.",
            "slug": "resubmit-with-formletterheadetc",
            "jurisdiction": 1,
            "basis": "Agencies will sometimes ask that a request be submitted through an online form or on letterhead - there is no legal basis for this exemption.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 13,
                    "language": "An agency cannot require a requester to submit a request, per SPR's guidance:\r\n\r\n\"There are no strict rules that govern the manner in which requests for public information should be made. Requests may be made in person or in writing. Written requests may be made in person, by  mail, facsimile or email.\"\r\n\r\nPlease begin processing the request in accordance with the law.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/massachusetts/exemption/resubmit-with-formletterheadetc-15/"
        },
        {
            "id": 16,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 53,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive. This behavior is specifically recognized in the law as being inappropriate/illegal.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 14,
                    "language": "The Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, as outlined in C.G.S. Section 1-206, specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within four business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/connecticut/exemption/constructive-denial-16/"
        },
        {
            "id": 17,
            "name": "C.G.S. Section 1-210(b)(19)",
            "slug": "cgs-section-1-210b19",
            "jurisdiction": 53,
            "basis": "C.G.S. Section 1-210(b)(19)\r\n\r\n> (19)  Records when there are reasonable grounds to believe disclosure may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person, any government-owned or leased institution or facility or any fixture or appurtenance and equipment attached to, or contained in, such institution or facility, except that such records shall be disclosed to a law enforcement agency upon the request of the law enforcement agency. Such reasonable grounds shall be determined (A) (i) by the Commissioner of Administrative Services, after consultation with the chief executive officer of an executive branch state agency, with respect to records concerning such agency; and (ii) by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, after consultation with the chief executive officer of a municipal, district or regional agency, with respect to records concerning such agency; (B) by the Chief Court Administrator with respect to records concerning the Judicial Department; and (C) by the executive director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management, with respect to records concerning the Legislative Department. As used in this section, “government-owned or leased institution or facility” includes, but is not limited to, an institution or facility owned or leased by a public service company, as defined in section 16-1, a certified telecommunications provider, as defined in section 16-1, a water company, as defined in section 25-32a, or a municipal utility that furnishes electric, gas or water service, but does not include an institution or facility owned or leased by the federal government, and “chief executive officer” includes, but is not limited to, an agency head, department head, executive director or chief executive officer. Such records include, but are not limited to:\r\n\r\n> (i)  Security manuals or reports;\r\n \r\n> (ii)  Engineering and architectural drawings of government-owned or leased institutions or facilities;\r\n \r\n> (iii)  Operational specifications of security systems utilized at any government-owned or leased institution or facility, except that a general description of any such security system and the cost and quality of such system, may be disclosed;\r\n \r\n> (iv)  Training manuals prepared for government-owned or leased institutions or facilities that describe, in any manner, security procedures, emergency plans or security equipment;\r\n\r\n> (v)  Internal security audits of government-owned or leased institutions or facilities;\r\n \r\n> (vi)  Minutes or records of meetings, or portions of such minutes or records, that contain or reveal information relating to security or other records otherwise exempt from disclosure under this subdivision;\r\n\r\n> (vii)  Logs or other documents that contain information on the movement or assignment of security personnel;\r\n\r\n> (viii)  Emergency plans and emergency preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation plans, including plans provided by a person to a state agency or a local emergency management agency or official; and\r\n\r\n> (ix)  With respect to a water company, as defined in section 25-32a, that provides water service: Vulnerability assessments and risk management plans, operational plans, portions of water supply plans submitted pursuant to section 25-32d that contain or reveal information the disclosure of which may result in a security risk to a water company, inspection reports, technical specifications and other materials that depict or specifically describe critical water company operating facilities, collection and distribution systems or sources of supply*",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 15,
                    "language": "This agency has inappropriately applied the restrictions of C.G.S. Section 1-210(b)(19). This exemption applies to materials that might disclose the particulars of security protections and emergency procedures. \r\n\r\nHowever, this particular request was not related to the security procedures in place to keep members of this agency and occupants of its buildings safe. Instead, it was related to the policies held and followed by this agency in the case of a particular type of community gathering that agents might encounter during the course of regular duties. In this case, the request was related to protests and demonstrations; these do not differ from occurrences of major sporting events or parades. \r\n\r\nGiven the inappropriate application of C.G.S. Section 1-210(b)(19) to this request, compulsion of the agency to produce the requested materials - keeping in mind the responsibilities of disclosure under the law, which include providing segregable sections of responsive materials when possible - would be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/connecticut/exemption/cgs-section-1-210b19-17/"
        },
        {
            "id": 18,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 78,
            "basis": "A.R.S. §39-121.01",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 16,
                    "language": "The failure of this agency to respond to this public records request is in violation of this agency’s responsibilities under the Arizona Public Records Law. As outlined in A.R.S. §39-121.01, there exists an expectation that the records custodian “shall promptly furnish such copies, printouts or photographs.” \r\n\r\nIn the case W. Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 216 Ariz. 225, the court relied on the Webster’s New World Dictionary for an acceptable definition of “prompt,” which, for the purposes of this law, means “quick to act or to do what is required” or “done, spoken, etc. at once or without delay.” \r\n\r\nIt is the responsibility of the agency to prove that its attempt to respond to this request was indeed “prompt.” This position has been supported in court (see Phoenix New Times v. Arpaio, 217 Ariz. 533 and Judical Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 228 Ariz. 393). In instances in which technological or other practical matters prevent the “prompt” disclosure of materials, it is the responsibility of the agency to provide an explanation of the reasons for the delay and an expectation for when the request might be fulfilled. \r\n\r\nThis agency’s complete failure to either acknowledge this request, provide an explanation for the delay, or provide an index of withheld materials and the related reasons constitutes a denial of this request under the Arizona Public Records Law. As such, this request is eligible for contest in the Arizona Supreme Court system and will appropriately qualify for the award of attorney’s fees upon the anticipated determination that this agency has failed to fulfill its legal obligations under the state’s Public Records Law.\r\n\r\nIn light of the above, it would be greatly appreciated if your agency would fulfill its duty to the citizens of this state and the principles of this country by complying with the aforementioned request for public records as its legal responsibility.",
                    "context": "The agency has failed to provide any response to a request."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/arizona/exemption/constructive-denial-18/"
        },
        {
            "id": 19,
            "name": "Rejected - No explanation cited",
            "slug": "rejected-no-explanation-cited",
            "jurisdiction": 78,
            "basis": "A.R.S. §39-121.01",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 17,
                    "language": "The provided communication denying disclosure of the requested information is insufficient to fulfill this agency’s responsibilities under the Arizona Public Records Law. \r\n\r\nThe accepted interpretation of the law, championed by both the courts (see Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487) and the Attorney General (see Arizona Attorney General Opinion I86-090) of this state, deems the subject agency of a records request responsible for providing a clear rationale for exempting any portion of a potentially-responsive public record. This responsibility requires identification of the legal foundation upon which any segments are redacted or withheld, as well as provision of those sections that may not be withheld; this includes those releasable materials which coexist alongside or are combined material not subject to disclosure. \r\n\r\nPlease provide the requested material, as required by law. Please also furnish an index of records or categories of records that have been withheld and the reasons the records or categories of records have been withheld, as required by A.R.S. §39-121.01.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/arizona/exemption/rejected-no-explanation-cited-19/"
        },
        {
            "id": 20,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 1,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive. This behavior is specifically recognized in the law as being inappropriate/illegal.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 18,
                    "language": "Massachusetts G. L. c. 66, § 10(a-b); 950 CMR 32.06(2)(a) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within ten business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under Massachusetts Public Records LAw. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/massachusetts/exemption/constructive-denial-20/"
        },
        {
            "id": 21,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 81,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 19,
                    "language": "New Hampshire \"Access to Government Records and Meetings\" Statute (RSA Ch. 91-A:4 § 4 ) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within five business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under New Hampshire Right to Know Law. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/new-hampshire/exemption/constructive-denial-21/"
        },
        {
            "id": 22,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 52,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 20,
                    "language": "California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 6253(c)) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within ten business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the California Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/california/exemption/constructive-denial-22/"
        },
        {
            "id": 23,
            "name": "Statutory Exemption",
            "slug": "statutory-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 1,
            "basis": "The statutory exemption can be applied to withhold information that is exempt from disclosure due to existing statutes. This exemption can be applied in two ways. Information that is described in a given statute as not being subject to the public record laws, such as the names of domestic violence victims, is exempt under the statutory exemption. The other use of this exemption applies to information that is only legally allowed to be shared with a specific group of people, such as medical information. \r\nUnder the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the dissemination of medical records is limited, in most cases, to patients, healthcare providers, and the patient’s court appointed guardian should he or she have one.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 51,
                    "language": "This agency has failed to meet its burden of properly explaining how the Fair Information Practices Act applies to either justifiably withhold records or redact certain information. \r\n\r\nWhile G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(a). creates two categories of exempt records - the first including records that are specifically, explicitly exempt from disclosure by statute and the second category including records deemed exempt under a statute by necessary implication - such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. \r\n\r\nThe Supervisor of Public Records upheld this requirement of the application of the FIPA in SPR Case Number 20170903, and in light of that fact, I ask that you reexamine your determinations on this request.",
                    "context": "For use when an agency withholds information by citing the Fair Information Practices Act (FIPA) without explaining what elements of the Act apply to the redactions. May also be adjusted and used in other instances in which an agency cites another statute without clarifying its applicability to the situation."
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/massachusetts/exemption/statutory-exemption-23/"
        },
        {
            "id": 24,
            "name": "Deliberative Process",
            "slug": "deliberative-process",
            "jurisdiction": 1,
            "basis": "This exemption excludes from disclosure any internal inter-agency or intra-agency documents pertaining to a police that is currently being deliberated upon.",
            "example_appeals": [],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/massachusetts/exemption/deliberative-process-24/"
        },
        {
            "id": 25,
            "name": "Privacy Exemption",
            "slug": "privacy-exemption",
            "jurisdiction": 1,
            "basis": "The privacy exemption can apply to medical files personnel files, or any other information that if disclosed would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy. It generally includes employment application, disciplinary action, information related to the demotion or firing of a public employee, and work evaluations. This exemption is broadly defined, and  applied differently on case by case basis.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 154,
                    "language": "The [Police Department] cited G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c) (the privacy exemption) to justify its decision to withhold information about [person or people arrested]. This exemption does not apply in this instance as [information such as names, phone numbers, birthdates, etc) are not “intimate details” of a “highly personal nature,” and most of this information is revealed in open court during the defendant's arraignment anyway.",
                    "context": ""
                },
                {
                    "id": 52,
                    "language": "It has been recognized by the courts and the Supervisor of Public Records, including in SPR 17/903, that public employees have a diminished expectation of privacy with respect to public employment matters. [See George W. Prescott Publishing Company v. Register of Probate for Norfolk County, 395 Mass. 274, 278 (1985).]\r\n\r\nCertain otherwise personal information may be considered public if relating to an individual's official responsibilities. [See Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (198); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438.] The substantial public interest in ascertaining the manner in which public officials perform their official duties will also operate to lessen that which may be considered personal with respect to a public employee.[ Attorney Gen. v. Collector ofLynn, 377 Mass. 151, 158 (1979); New Bedford Standard Times Publishing Co. v. Clerk of the Third District Court of Bristol, 377 Mass. 404, 417 (1979); 1976-77 Op. Atty Gen. Mass. 157 at 12.]\r\n\r\nThis clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. [Id. at 292. ]\r\n\r\nThe types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. [Id. at 292 n. 13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number)]. \r\n\r\nThe requested records concern expenses filed by a public employee and funds reimbursed to this same public employee which were paid from taxpayer funds. There is a strong public interest in the monitoring of public expenditures. As a result, certain information that would ordinarily be considered personal may be a public record if it relates to a public employee's official responsibilities. [See Brogan, 401 Mass. 306, 309 (1987) (attendance records of public employees are public); see also Hastings & Sons Publishing Company v. City Treasurer of Lynn, 3 7 4 Mass. 812, 818 (1978) (payroll records of public employees are public record)].\r\n\r\nPlease provide the requested materials in a manner in accordance with the requirements and spirit of the public records law.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/massachusetts/exemption/privacy-exemption-25/"
        },
        {
            "id": 26,
            "name": "Employee Notebooks",
            "slug": "employee-notebooks",
            "jurisdiction": 1,
            "basis": "This exemption applies to records that are maintained by a government employee that are of a personal nature, and not related to the employee's work as a government employee.",
            "example_appeals": [],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/massachusetts/exemption/employee-notebooks-26/"
        },
        {
            "id": 27,
            "name": "Secret Investigatory Materials",
            "slug": "secret-investigatory-materials",
            "jurisdiction": 1,
            "basis": "This exemption applies to investigatory materials that if released could hinder an investigation.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 155,
                    "language": "I'm appealing [police department's] assertion that it is appropriate to apply G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) (the secret investigatory materials exemption). The police cannot withhold investigatory materials simply because the materials are part of an investigative file. \r\nThere is case law which holds that in many cases opening investigatory materials to public inspection can serve the public interest better than keeping the information private, as transparency helps the public hold the police and court system accountable. (Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II).\r\nThe Supreme Court has also held, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), that “To work effectively, it is important that society's criminal process ‘satisfy the appearance of justice,’ (Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 348 U. S. 14), which can best be provided by allowing people to observe such process.”",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/massachusetts/exemption/secret-investigatory-materials-27/"
        },
        {
            "id": 28,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 235,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 21,
                    "language": "Alaska Public Records Act  2 AAC 96.325 (a): specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within ten business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Alaska Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/alaska/exemption/constructive-denial-28/"
        },
        {
            "id": 29,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 114,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 22,
                    "language": "Arkansas Freedom of Information Act § § 25-19-105 (3) (e): specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within three business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/arkansas/exemption/constructive-denial-29/"
        },
        {
            "id": 30,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 236,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 23,
                    "language": "Delaware Freedom of Information Act 29 Del. C. § 10001 (h): specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within fifteen business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Delaware Freedom of Information Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/delaware/exemption/constructive-denial-30/"
        },
        {
            "id": 31,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 230,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 24,
                    "language": "Georgia Open Records Act O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(f): specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within three business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Georgia Open Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/georgia/exemption/constructive-denial-31/"
        },
        {
            "id": 32,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 247,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 25,
                    "language": "HAR 2-71-13: specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within ten business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Uniform Information Practices Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/hawaii/exemption/constructive-denial-32/"
        },
        {
            "id": 33,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 228,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 26,
                    "language": "Idaho Public Records Act I.C. § 74-103 : specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within three business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Idaho Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/idaho/exemption/constructive-denial-33/"
        },
        {
            "id": 34,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 168,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 27,
                    "language": "Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/3) (from Ch. 116, par. 203) : specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within five business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/illinois/exemption/constructive-denial-34/"
        },
        {
            "id": 35,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 152,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 28,
                    "language": "Indiana Access to Public Records Act I.C. § 5-14-3-9(a) : specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within seven business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/indiana/exemption/constructive-denial-35/"
        },
        {
            "id": 36,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 246,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 29,
                    "language": "Iowa Open Records Law Code § 22.8(4)(d) : specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within twenty business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Iowa Open Records Law. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/iowa/exemption/constructive-denial-36/"
        },
        {
            "id": 37,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 111,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 30,
                    "language": "Kansas Open Records Act (K.S.A. 45-218, d) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within three business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Kansas Open Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/kansas/exemption/constructive-denial-37/"
        },
        {
            "id": 38,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 147,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 31,
                    "language": "Kentucky Open Records Act Ky.Rev.Stat..Ann. 61.872 specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within three business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Kentucky Open Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/kentucky/exemption/constructive-denial-38/"
        },
        {
            "id": 39,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 233,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 32,
                    "language": "Louisiana Public Records Law R.S. 44:32(C) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within three business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Louisiana Public Records Law. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/louisiana/exemption/constructive-denial-39/"
        },
        {
            "id": 40,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 13,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 33,
                    "language": "Maine Public Records Law Maine Revised Statutes, Title 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1 § 408-A specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within five business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Maine Public Records Law. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/maine/exemption/constructive-denial-40/"
        },
        {
            "id": 41,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 154,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 34,
                    "language": "Maryland Public Information Act Md. Ann. Code art. GP, § 4-202 (d) (2) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within thirty business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Maryland Public Information Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/maryland/exemption/constructive-denial-41/"
        },
        {
            "id": 42,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 231,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 35,
                    "language": "Mississippi Public Records Act Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-5. specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within seven business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Mississippi Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/mississippi/exemption/constructive-denial-42/"
        },
        {
            "id": 43,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 299,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 36,
                    "language": "Missouri Sunshine Law § 610.023, RSMo Supp. 2006 specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within three business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Missouri Sunshine Law. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/missouri/exemption/constructive-denial-43/"
        },
        {
            "id": 44,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 300,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 37,
                    "language": "Nebraska Public Records Law  N.R.S. 84-712.04 specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within four business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Nebraska Public Records Law. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/nebraska/exemption/constructive-denial-44/"
        },
        {
            "id": 45,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 301,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 38,
                    "language": "Nevada Public Records Act NRS 239.0107 specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within five business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Nevada Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/nevada/exemption/constructive-denial-45/"
        },
        {
            "id": 46,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 229,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 39,
                    "language": "New Jersey Open Public Records Act N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5.i specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within seven business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/new-jersey/exemption/constructive-denial-46/"
        },
        {
            "id": 47,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 227,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 40,
                    "language": "New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act 14-2-8 NMSA 1978 (d) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within 15 business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/new-mexico/exemption/constructive-denial-47/"
        },
        {
            "id": 48,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 16,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 41,
                    "language": "New York Freedom of Information Law N.Y. Pub. Off. Law Ch. 47 Art. 6 § 87(b) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within 5 business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the New York Freedom of Information Law. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/new-york/exemption/constructive-denial-48/"
        },
        {
            "id": 49,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 82,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 42,
                    "language": "Rhode Island Access to Public Records Act § 38-2-3 (e) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within 10 business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the Rhode Island Access to Public Records Act. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/rhode-island/exemption/constructive-denial-49/"
        },
        {
            "id": 50,
            "name": "Constructive Denial",
            "slug": "constructive-denial",
            "jurisdiction": 302,
            "basis": "There is no legal basis for an agency being completely unresponsive.",
            "example_appeals": [
                {
                    "id": 43,
                    "language": "South Carolina Public Records Law S.C. Code Ann. § 30-1-30(c) specifically requires that an agency provide a response to a public records request within 15 business days of receipt of that request. \r\n\r\nBy failing to respond to this request within the legally-mandated timeframe, this agency is in violation of the law. \r\n\r\nPlease provide acknowledgement of this request and the responsive materials forthwith. If such materials cannot be produced, please provide an appropriate explanation for this rejection, as is dictated by this agency's legal obligations under the South Carolina Public Records Law. Your accelerated attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.",
                    "context": ""
                }
            ],
            "absolute_url": "https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/south-carolina/exemption/constructive-denial-50/"
        }
    ]
}