A. Can the requester choose a format for receiving records?

The statute allows citizens access to information in whatever form it is kept by the government "regardless of format or physical characteristics." AS 40.25.220(3). The assumption, and the practice, is that a requester can obtain documents in the format of his or her choosing, if the agency keeps them in that format. Otherwise, it is not clear that the requester has a right to require the agency to create documents in a format in which it does not ordinarily keep the information.

For example, if a document is stored electronically using one word processing program such as Word Perfect, or a video document is stored as a Beta tape, the requester would not have the right to require the state to supply these records as Microsoft Word documents or VHS tapes. The public records law specifically provides that agencies are entitled to exercise their discretion about whether to provide duplication of public records in an alternative format not used by a public agency, and to charge an enhanced fee if they choose to do so. AS 40.25.220(1)(A). Certain agencies have attempted at times to provide electronically stored information only in a less usable paper "printout" format, but have ultimately provided information on disk in response to objections from media organizations without the need for litigation.

One notable exception is the June 2011 production of 22,000 pages of e-mails pursuant to media requests—following the 2008 selection of former governor Sarah Palin as Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s running mate—for virtually all of the e-mails to or from Palin during her tenure as governor.  In the end, these e-mails were produced in hard copy, in sets of six banker boxes of documents.  It is likely that this was a unique situation, resulting from a number of factors that included:  1) the unprecedented volume of documents sought, 2) the number of requestors, 3) the number of employees/computers whose records were to be searched and analyzed to comply with the requests, 4) the state’s need to be able to review the documents to remove or redact privileged matters, and 5) the state’s assertion of practical infeasibility with respect to carrying out these responsibilities with the document management software it used at the time. Software now in use by the state should permit the state obtain, review, redact as necessary, and produce electronic documents in their native format. While a requestor may not be able to require that a public record be produced in a format other than that in which it is maintained, agreements to produce records in alternate formats can be and have been negotiated for the convenience of either the requestor or the agency or both, and there is no harm in asking for such accommodation.