b. Fees for records

In appropriate cases, the court will address the question of fees for the requested records. See, e.g., Birmingham News Co. v. Peevy, 21 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2125 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Cnty., Ala., July 22, 1993) (ordering plaintiff to pay actual, reasonable cost of creating a new computer program to retrieve the requested records and the statutorily mandated $5.75 for each driving record identified by named driver) (effective Sept. 13, 1997, access to MVRs is governed by 18 U.S.C. §  2721).

Among the variety of issues courts addressed in public records cases are those relating to fees that can appropriately be charged, a matter largely governed by statute.  For example, in Fuller v. City of Homer, 113 P.3d 659, 666 (Alaska 2005) (Fuller II), the Alaska Supreme court interpreted the Public Records Act provisions as not allowing public officials to charge for time spent by a clerk or agency official reviewing records to determine whether they are or are not disclosable due to potential assertions of deliberative process or other privileges.  The court said this is not a production task for which a records requester can be charged. Production efforts by an agency for which time spent can be charged to a records requester are those that are those clerical, ministerial functions inherent and necessary in a records search, not executive functions implicating the exercise of professional expertise and judgment Fuller II, 113 P.3d at 665-666. (Insofar as any portion of the amount the citizen was required to prepay as a condition of obtaining access to requested documents was attributable to a privilege review, this was improper — even if the review were conducted efficiently — and city was required to repay any such amounts). Id. At 668. In the event of a dispute, it is for the fact finder to decide whether the amount charged was incurred appropriately, but as a matter of law, the agency cannot charge for time spent on tasks other than searching for and copying the records, and in particular cannot charge for reviewing the documents to determine what might be withheld. Id.

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

As amended in 2001, the FOIA expressly provides that unless another statute authorizes a higher fee, “any fee for copies shall not exceed the actual costs of reproduction, including the costs of the medium of reproduction, supplies, equipment, and maintenance, but not including existing agency personnel time associated with searching for, retrieving, reviewing, or copying the records.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(d)(3)(A)(i). Also, the custodian must provide an itemized breakdown of all charges. Id. § 25-19-105(d)(3)(B). Copying fees imposed by the agency could be challenged in court as exceeding the “actual costs of reproduction.” Id. § 25-19-105(d)(3)(A)(i).

It is a violation of the CPRA for an agency to charge more than "the direct cost of duplication," unless a statutory fee provision allows for additional charges. Cal. Gov't Code § 7922.530(a). With respect to documents, "direct costs" means photocopying costs only. N. Cty. Parents Org. v. Cal. Dep’t of Ed., 23 Cal. App. 4th 144, 148, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 359 (1994). With respect to electronic records and computer data, "direct costs" means the cost of "producing a copy of a record in an electronic format." Cal. Gov't Code § 7922.575(a). However, under the CPRA a requester may be required to bear the additional costs to “construct a record, and the cost of  programming and computer services necessary to produce a copy of the record when either of the following applies: ¶ (1) In order to comply with subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 7922.570, the public agency would be required to produce a copy of an electronic record and the record is one that is produced only at otherwise regularly scheduled intervals. ¶ (2) The request would require data compilation, extraction, or programming to produce the record." Cal. Gov't Code § 7922.575(b). An agency’s time spend to edit out exempt material from digital officer body camera footage required to be disclosed under Section 832.7(b) of the Penal Code was not chargeable to the requester under this Section. Nat. Lawyers Guild v. Cty. of Hayward, 9 Cal. 5th 488, 607, 263 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124, 464 P.3d 594 (2020).

Courts may determine whether fees charged for inspection or copying are not reasonable.

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

Where the parties cannot agree on the reasonable expense of producing the information to the requesting party, Delaware courts have indicated their willingness to intervene. Bd. of Managers of the Delaware Crim. Just. Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co., 2005 WL 2660049 (Del. Super. Sept. 6, 2005).

Florida courts have jurisdiction to determine the propriety of fees levied by public agencies for inspection and copies of public records. See, e.g., Davis v. McMillan, 38 So. 666 (Fla. 1905).  There is no unlawful delay or denial of access under the Law when an entity subject to it requires a deposit from the records requestor prior to reviewing and redacting the requested records’ confidential information when there were two review processes in place.  Morris Publ’g Grp., LLC v. State, 154 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).  Section 119.07 provides a fee schedule for a copy of public records when a fee is not prescribed by law as follows: “[u]p to 15 cents per one-sided copy for duplicated copies of not more than 14 inches by 8 ½ inches; [n]o more than an additional 5 cents for each two-sided copy; and [f]or all other copies, the actual cost of duplication of the public record.”  Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(a) (2020).  For a certified copy of a record, an agency can charge up to $1 per copy.  Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(c) (2020).

The courts are authorized to examine whether fee requests violate the Act.

Yes.

Although not specifically set for in the act, one of the issues a court may review is whether the fees charged by the public agency are appropriate under Idaho Code § 74-102.

The imposition of a fee not consistent with the FOIA’s fee provision enunciated in 5 ILCS 140/6(a) & (b) constitutes a denial of access to public records for the purposes of judicial review. See 5 ILCS 140/6(d).

A court would presumably address fee issues if the public agency does not follow the statutory requirements. See Ind. Code § 5-14-3-8. If an agency charges excessive fees for records and those fees amount to a denial of access, a court could address this issue as a constructive denial, but no published opinions have considered the issue. Unreasonable fees may implicate Indiana Code Section 5-14-3-4(g), which states that “[e]xcept as provided by law, a public agency may not adopt a rule or procedure nor impose any costs or liabilities that impede or restrict the reproduction or dissemination of any public record.”

The lawful custodian may charge a reasonable fee for services rendered in connection with supervision of the records which are the subject of the request. Iowa Code § 22.3; Hackman v. Kolbet for New Hampton Municipal Light Plant, No. 16-2063, 2017 WL 3065168, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 19, 2017) (noting the act “authorizes the entity to charge a reasonable fee in order to execute an open records request”).

If at issue, the court is required to determine whether the fee is “reasonable” under K.S.A. 45-219(c).  “[T]he fees shall not exceed the actual cost of furnishing copies, including the cost of staff time required to make the information available.”  K.S.A. 45-219(c)(1).

Court actions under the Open Records Act may be brought concerning the appropriateness of fees charged by public agencies. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.882(1). A public agency may charge a reasonable fee for reproduction of nonexempt public records, which will not exceed the actual costs of reproduction. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.874(4); Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, L.L.P. v. Revenue Cabinet, 69 S.W.3d 476, 480 (Ky App. 2002). Costs of reproduction include costs of media and any mechanical processing cost, but not costs of required staff. Id. An agency may not charge sales tax for reproduction of records because "providing copies of nonexempt public records is not a 'sale' of the records." Id.

Yes. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:32(C).

The court should address excessive fees, but so far a fee case has not been decided by the Law Court.  The issue has come up in the Superior Court.  See LOCATEPLUS.COM v. State of Maine, 2002 Me. Super. LEXIS 61 at *11 (Me. Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2002) (addressing the cost to obtain copies of a Bureau of Motor Vehicles database containing motor vehicle registration information of 1,249,570 records, motor vehicle title information containing 2,082,180 records, and driver’s license information containing 951,529 records).

The court may address fee issues. See Mayor of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147, 506 A.2d 683 (1986).

The court will probably address fees. Reasonableness of fees is basically a matter left to the administrative discretion of the Supervisor of Public Records. Op. Atty. Gen. Oct. 20, 1977, p.92.

Fees charged must be computed in accordance with the FOIA's requirements, not on a basis established by the agency to save money. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.234(1).

If the court finds that fees were impermissibly charged for access to the data, it may set aside such fees.

Fees for records. § 25-61-13.

Section 610.026 governs fees for copying public records. Fees for copying public records, except those records restricted under 32.091, shall not exceed ten cents per page for a paper copy not larger than nine by fourteen inches, with the hourly fee for duplicating time not to exceed the average hourly rate of pay for clerical staff of the public governmental body. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.026(1). Research time required for fulfilling records requests may be charged at the actual cost of research time. Id. The public governmental body shall produce the copies using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research, and duplication time. Id. A court has held that attorney review time is not included in the “research time” that public bodies may charge for pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.026(1). White v. City of Ladue, 422 S.W.3d 439, 452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). Fees for electronic records cannot exceed the actual cost to the public governmental body, plus research time. R.L. Polk & Co. v. Missouri Dept. of Revenue, 309 S.W.3d 881 (Mo.Ct.App. 2010).

A district court may consider whether the fees for the records are excessive and constitute denial.

There is no statutory or case law addressing the issue

Yes.

In a court action, the court will consider all issues raised by the pleadings, including denial of access to the records, the reasonableness of any fees, delays in obtaining records. See Techniscan Corp. v. Passaic Valley Water Comm’n, 218 N.J. Super. 226, 229 (App. Div. 1987). Common law access denials can be considered by the court as well as denials of access under OPRA.  In an action before the Government Records Council, the Council may only consider claims arising under OPRA.

Court will address any fee dispute or denial of records and has the full authority to issue a Writ of Mandamus, order an injunction, or other appropriate remedy to enforce the provision of Public Records Act, including damages, costs and attorney fees.  NMSA 1978 § 14-2-12(B), (D).

The court may review the amount charged for copies. See, e.g., Sheehan v. City of Syracuse, 137 Misc.2d 438, 521 N.Y.S.2d 207 (Sup. Ct. 1987); Reese v. Mahoney, (Sup. Ct., Erie Cty., June 28, 1984); Szikszay v. Buelow, 107 Misc.2d 886, 436 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. Ct. 1981); Real Estate Data. Inc. v. Cty. of Nassau, No. 11364 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Sept. 18, 1981).

The court may address unlawful fees charged for records. See N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2(1).

Copies of records are available at “actual cost,” which “does not include labor costs for employee time to respond to the request and make the copies.” State ex rel. Data Trace Info. Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St. 3d 255, 264, 963 N.E.2d 1288, 1297, 2012-Ohio-753, ¶ 43.

Agencies may not charge fees to requesters seeking to inspect, rather than copy, records, and courts will address the charging of fees unauthorized by statute. State ex rel. Warren Newspapers Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St. 3d 619, 640 N.E.2d 174 (1994).

Fees shall not be used for the purpose of discouraging requests for information or as obstacles to disclosure of requested information. 51 O.S. § 24A.5(4). Excessive fees may not be charged for copying records and any violation of the Act creates criminal or civil liability. 51 O.S. § 24A.5(3).

State courts have jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of fees. In Def. of Animals v. OHSU, 199 Or. App. 160, 112 P.3d 336 (2005).

Yes.

Unclear whether may be addressed.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has held that copy costs may not exceed the actual cost of making copies. Seago v. Horry County, 663 S.E.2d 38 (S.C. 2008).

Presumably.

This may be addressed by Court.

Not specifically addressed.

Presumably, the court could rule on the reasonableness of duplication fees charged by government entities.

Recently, the Vermont Supreme Court held that based on the plain language of the Public Records Act, government agencies cannot charge for staff time spent in complying with requests to inspect public records, as opposed to coping public records.  Doyle v. City of Burlington Police Dep't, 2019 VT 66, ¶ 1 (holding that state agencies cannot charge for staff time to inspect a public record even when it takes agency staff time to redact exempt information from the requested record).  The court noted that “[b]y its plain language, this provision [1 V.S.A. § 316(c)] authorizes charges only for requests for copies of public records, not for requests for inspection.”  Id. at ¶ 6; see also Vt. State Emps. Ass’n v. Vt. Agency of Natural Res., No. 517-7-10, 2011 Vt. Super. LEXIS 2, *5-6 (Vt. Super. Wash. County Jan. 6, 2011) (holding that an agency is entitled to seek fees only “when there is a request for a copy, but not when there is a request to inspect, even though the costs incurred by the agency may be largely the same”).

Although it declined to address the claims “concerning the proper allocation of staff costs for the creation of a document index under the PRA,” the Vermont Supreme Court acknowledged that the superior court had denied the State’s request for an order “requiring plaintiff to pay the estimated $18,900 in staff costs that would be incurred in creating a guide to the sealed documents, and the estimated $168,750 in costs for summarizing the contents of the documents,” without additional commentary. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. State, 2005 VT 108, ¶¶ 6, 19, 892 A.2d 191, 195, 200 (Vt. 2005).

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

An authority only may charge the “actual, necessary and direct cost of reproduction . . . .” Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3). A requester can challenge the fees on mandamus.