Susan L. Naughton LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES

Transcription

1 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES SINCE September , 2016 OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS September 1, 2016 Clerk of Appellate Courts 305 Minnesota Judicial Center 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota RE: Webster v. Hennepin County Appellate Court File No. A Dear Clerk of Appellate Courts: Enclosed for filing are five copies (four bound, one unbound) of the Joint Brief of Amici Curiae by the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Minnesota Counties along with an Affidavit of Service. By copy of this letter, service is made, by U.S. mail, on all counsel ofrecord requesting conventional service. Additional counsel were served through E-MACS service. Sincerely, Susan L. Naughton Staff Attorney League of Minnesota Cities Enclosures cc (w/encl.): Randy M. Lebedoff Jennifer Lynch Samuel Aintablian 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST ST. PAUL, MN PHONE: (651) FAX: (651) TOLL FREE: (800) WEB:

2 CASE NO. A STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Tony Webster, vs. Respondent, Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office, Appellants/Relators. JOINT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA COUNTIES Michael O. Freeman HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY Daniel P. Rogan, Sr. (#274458) St. Assistant County Attorney A-2000 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN (612) Attorneys for Appellants/Relators Scott M. Flaherty (#388354) Cyrus C. Malek (#395223) Samuel Aintablian II (#398075) BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN (612) Attorneys for Respondent Susan L. Naughton (#259743) LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN (651) Attorney for Amici Curiae League of Minnesota Cities Association of Minnesota Counties

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE STATEMENT OF THE IDEN TITY OF AMICI CURIAE... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT _ I. This appeal will have a significant, statewide impact II. It would be bad law and public policy to require political subdivisions to respond to unduly burdensome government-data requests that will significantly interfere with their effective government operation... 9 CONCLUSION l

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page MINNESOTA STATUTES Minn. Stat passim Minn. Stat , 7, 11 Minn. Stat Minn. Stat , 9 Minn. Stat , 9 Minn. Stat Minn. Stat Minn. Stat Minn. Stat Minn. Stat MINNESOTA RULES Minn. R , subp FEDERAL CASES Church of Scientology v. I.R.S., 792 F.2d 146 (D.D.C. 1986) Dale v. Internal Revenue Serv., 238 F.Supp.2d 99 (D.D.C. 2002) Goland v. C.I.A., 607 F.2d 339 (D.D.C. 1978) Irons v. Schuyler, 465 F.2d 608, 61 1 (D.D.C. 1972)

5 MINNESOTA CASES Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 2001) , 10 City of Brainerdv. Brainerd lnvs. P'ship, 827 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 2013)... 9 Knopp v. Gutterman, 102 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1960) KSTP-TV v. Ramsey Cnty., 806 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 2011) Larson v. State, 790 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2010) Schwanke v. Minn. Dep 't of Admin., 851 N.W.2d 591 (Minn. 2014) OTHER AUTHORITY Dept. Admin. Adv. Op Dept. Admin. Adv. Op Dept. Admin. Adv. Op The American Heritage Dictionary 88 (5th ed. 2011) Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary 70 (5th ed. 2014) The Meriam-Webster Dictionary 34 (7th ed. 2016)

6 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDP A") requires political subdivisions to comply with government-data requests in an "appropriate and prompt manner." Does a political subdivision respond in an "appropriate" manner by notifying a government-data requestor that his request is unduly burdensome because it is too general and broad and by offering to respond to a new request that has been reasonably narrowed? The administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that Hennepin County violated Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a) by failing to establish "procedures to ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner." In support of its holding, the ALJ concluded that the MGDPA "does not recognize burden as a basis to deny access to public government data." 1

7 STATEMENT OF THE IDENTITY OF AMICI CURIAE The League of Minnesota Cities ("League") has a voluntary membership of 832 out of 853 Minnesota cities. 1 It represents the common interests of cities before courts and other governmental bodies and provides a variety of services to its members, including information, education, training, policy-development, risk-management, and advocacy services. The League's mission is to promote excellence in local government through effective advocacy, expert analysis, and trusted guidance for all Minnesota cities. The Association of Minnesota Counties ("AMC") is a voluntary association of all 87 counties in the State of Minnesota organized pursuant to Minn. Stat The mission of the AMC is to provide counties with support so that they may effectively perform the duties and responsibilities delegated to them by law. The AMC works closely with the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of government on issues involving adoption, enforcement, and modification of laws and policies that affect counties, and represents the position of counties before state and federal government agencies and the public. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The League and the AMC adopt the County's statement of the case and facts. 1 Amici curiae certify that this brief was not authored, in whole or in part, by counsel for either party to this appeal, and that no other person or entity, besides the League, has made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. 2

8 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Tony Webster originally demanded Hennepin County ("County") to search all of its government records since January 1, 2013 for data containing 20 separate search terms, relating to biometric data or mobile biometric technology. Mr. Webster demanded: [A]ny and all data since January l, 2013, including s, which reference biometric data or mobile biometric technology. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to s containing the following keywords, which I request the County conduct both manual and IT searches for: a. biometric OR biometrics b. rapiddna c. facial recognition OR face recognition OR face scan OR face scanner d. iris scan OR iris scanner OR eye scan OR eye scanner e. tattoo recognition OR tattoo scan OR tattoo scanner f. Data Works g. Morphotrust h. L 1 ID or L-1 Identity i. Cognitec J. F acef irst 2 The County notified Mr. Webster that this request was "unreasonable and too burdensome with which to comply." 3 However, the County also informed Mr. Webster that ifhe wished to "narrow" his request, it would work with him to determine "a reasonable limitation. " 4 Mr. Webster subsequently narrowed" his term-search demand to s from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, Hennepin County Security, and other employees that provide services to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. 5 But this "narrowed" request 2 Webster Test., Ex. 2, County's Add. at Webster Test., Ex. 18, County's Add. at Id. 5 Webster Test., Ex. 20, County's Add. at

9 involved a computer-aided term-search of approximately seven million s from almost 1,000 accounts. 6 As a result, the County again notified Mr. Webster that his request was still a "massive search request" that was "unduly burdensome" and offered to respond to a more limited request that was narrowed "in terms of the time-frame, number of employees, and search terms." 7 Instead of further narrowing his request, Mr. Webster sought an administrative remedy against the County for alleged violations of the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act ("MGDP A") as authorized by statute. 8 An administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that Mr. Webster's demand for a computer-aided term-search of records was a valid "request" for government data under the MGDP A and held that the County violated the MGDP A, in part, by failing to establish "procedures to ensure compliance with the request for government data in an appropriate and prompt manner. " 9 In support of its holding, the ALJ concluded that the MGDPA "does not recognize 'burden' as a basis to deny access to public government data." 10 In short, although the MGDP A does not provide an express exemption from compliance with "unduly burdensome" government-data requests, such an exemption must be implied based on the MGDPA's legislative intent and the plain meaning of the term "appropriate" in Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a). The MGDPA does not require 6 Webster Test., Ex. 49, County's Add. at Webster Test., Ex. 44, County's Add. at Minn. Stat County's Add. at County's Add. at 13. 4

10 political subdivisions to comply with every government-data request they receive without question or limitation. Instead, Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a) authorizes political subdivisions to provide an "appropriate" response to government-data requests. It would be bad law and public policy to require political subdivisions to respond to unduly burdensome government-data requests that will significantly interfere with their effective government operation. Instead, this court should reverse the ALJ's decision and hold that political subdivisions-when confronted with a data-practices request that is unduly burdensome because it is either too general regarding the government data that is being requested or too broad regarding the volume of government data that must be searched to comply with the request-responds in an ''appropriate" manner, within the meaning of Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a), by offering to comply with a new request that has been reasonably narrowed. ARGUMENT The League and the AMC concur with the County's legal arguments and will not repeat them here. Instead, this brief addresses the statewide significance of this appeal and demonstrates why the ALJ erred as a matter of law by concluding that the MGDP A requires political subdivisions to comply with unduly burdensome government-data requests. 5

11 I. This appeal will have a significant, statewide impact. This appeal will have a significant, statewide impact on political subdivisions across Minnesota. All Minnesota cities and counties must comply with the MGDP A. 11 Therefore, all Minnesota cities and counties have a public interest in ensuring that the MGDPA is not interpreted in a way that will require them to comply with unduly burdensome government-data requests that will significantly interfere with their effective government operation. Two practical realities confront Minnesota cities and counties when they respond to government-data requests. First, Minnesota cities and counties have a wide variety of governmental functions they must fulfill. Therefore, they necessarily have limited time and financial resources that they can expend to respond to government-data requests. This is especially true because the MGDP A limits political subdivisions' ability to recoup the cost of staff time that is needed to comply with government-data requests. 12 While our members agree that openness in government and compliance with the MGDP A are important, it is also important to acknowledge that requiring cities and counties to comply with unduly burdensome government-data requests will necessarily frustrate them from fulfilling their many other important governmental functions. 11 Minn. Stat , subd. 7a (defining a government entity that is subject to the MGDPA's requirements as a "state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision"); Minn. Stat , subd. 11 ( defining, in part, a "political subdivision" as "any county, statutory or home rule charter city, school district, special district, any town exercising powers under chapter and any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision"). 12 See, e.g., Minn. Stat , subd. 3(a) (providing that political subdivisions may not charge a government-data requestor any fee to "inspect" government data). 6

12 The second practical reality that Minnesota cities and counties confront when responding 13 to government-data requests are records-retention requirements. Because of these requirements, Minnesota cities and counties commonly maintain over 100 years' worth of a multitude of government records in a wide variety of physical forms, including both paper and electronic records. If Minnesota cities and counties are required to comply with unduly burdensome government-data requests, requestors of government data will be able to submit broad requests that will require cities and counties to search all of their government records. For example, a government-data requestor, who has no idea whether government data about her actually exists, could ask a city to allow her to inspect any of its government records in any form that reference her in any way. 14 In order to comply with this request, the city would need to review each and every government record it maintains even though the likelihood of finding responsive government data is remote. A government-data requestor submitted a similar request under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FOIA does not control here, but this federal case illustrates some of the problems that would be created ifthe MGDPA were 13 See Minn. Stat , subd. 1 (imposing a duty on all officers of counties and cities to ''make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities); See also Minn. Stat , (adopting requirements for the preservation and disposal of public records). 14 By only requesting to "inspect" the government data (as opposed to requesting copies of it), the government-data requestor avoids any obligation to pay the city for the staff time it took to search each and every government record for any reference to her. Minn. Stat , subd. 3(a). Furthermore, because the requestor is the purported "subject" of the data, the city would be obligated to respond to this unduly burdensome request within 10 days. Minn. Stat , subd. 3. 7

13 interpreted to require political subdivisions to comply with unduly burdensome government-data requests. In this federal case, the data requestor sought from the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") "[a]ny and all documents, including but not limited to files, that refer or relate in any way to [the government-data requestor]." 15 The federal district court concluded that this request was unreasonable because it was too broad, and therefore, reasoned that the IRS was not required to comply with it under the FOIA. 16 The federal district court reasoned that a request for government data must reasonably describe the data requested and that this requirement is satisfied if a request would 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." 17 The federal district court noted that the "rationale for this rule is that FOIA was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-time investigators on behalf of requesters." 18 In this case, Mr. Webster testified that he actually believes that the County has an obligation under the MGDP A to search every and every other document it maintains in any form for any phrase or topic he includes in a government-data request. 19 In short, Mr. Webster believes that the MGDP A should 15 Dale v. Internal Revenue Serv., 238 F.Supp.2d 99, 101 (D.D.C. 2002). 16 Id. at Id. ( citation omitted). 18 Jd. (citing Assassination Archives & Research Ctr., Inc. v. CIA, 720 F.Supp. 217, 219 (D.D.C. 1989)). 19 Tr. At , County's Br. at 44. 8

14 be interpreted to authorize him to use the County as his research assistant. But such a result would be bad law and public policy. IL It would be bad law and public policy to require political subdivisions to respond to unduly burdensome government-data requests that will significantly interfere with their effective government operation. This court may reverse the ALJ' s decision if it is affected by an "error of law." 20 In determining whether the ALJ's interpretation of the MGDPA was legally erroneous, this court applies a de novo standard of review. 21 The "object of all interpretation and construction of laws," including the interpretation and construction of the MGDPA, "is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature." 22 The first question in any case of statutory interpretation is to "determine whether the statute's language, on its face, is ambiguous." 23 Where the legislature's intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and the statute's plain meaning is applied. 24 When examining the language of a statute, courts "construe words and phrases according 20 Minn. Stat , subd. 5(d) (providing for judicial review of the ALJ's decision as set out in "sections to 14.69" of the Minnesota Statutes); Minn. Stat (providing for the scope of judicial review of the ALJ's decision and authorizing reversal if the decision is affected by an "error of law"). 21 Schwanke v. Minn. Dep't of Admin., 851 N.W.2d 591, 594 n. 1 (Minn. 2014) (applying de novo review to the "legal question of statutory interpretation" of the MGDPA). 22 Minn. Stat Larson v. State, 790 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Minn. 2010); Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn.2001) 24 Id; City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs. P'ship, 827 N.W.2d 752, 755 (Minn. 2013). 9

15 to their common usage" and "read words and phrases to avoid absurd results and unjust consequences. " 25 This court should reverse the decision below because the ALJ erred as a matter oflaw in holding that the MGDPA "does not recognize 'burden' as a basis to deny access to public government data. " 26 This holding is legally erroneous because it conflicts with the MGDPA' s legislative intent and the plain meaning of the statutory language in Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a) that authorizes political subdivisions to respond to government-data requests in an "appropriate" manner. The Minnesota Supreme Court has already noted that the legislature intended for the public interest in "effective government operation" to be considered when the MGDP A is interpreted. The purpose of the MGDPA is to reconcile the rights of data subjects to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure with the right of the public to know what the government is doing. The Act also attempts to balance these competing rights within a context of effective government operation KSTP-TVv. Ramsey Cnty., 806 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Minn. 2011) (citing Minn. Stat (2010) (quotation omitted)); American Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 2001) (courts should not construe a statute to lead to an absurd result if the language will reasonably permit another construction); Minn. Stat (1) (in ascertaining the legislature's intent, courts should presume that "the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable"). 26 County's Add. at KSTP-TVv. Ramsey Cnty., 806 N.W.2d 785,788 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted); See also Minn. Stat (5) (when determining legislative intent, courts may presume that the legislature intends to favor the public interest as against any private interest); Knopp v. Gutterman, 102 N.W.2d 689, 695 (Minn. 1960) (noting that government questions must not be determined along technical lines but that broad and practical considerations should control). 10

16 Likewise, the Minnesota Rules expressly acknowledges that the legislature intended for the MGDP A to be applied in a way that does not curtail the efficient operation of government. "This chapter [chapter 13] is intended to guide entities so that while protection is given to individual privacy, neither necessary openness in government nor the orderly and efficient operation of government is curtailed. " 28 The MGDPA does not require political subdivisions to comply with every government-data request they receive without question or limitation. Instead, the MGDP A requires political subdivision to provide an "appropriate and prompt" response to government-data requests. 29 The MGDPA does not define the word "appropriate." 30 But this nontechnical term is not ambiguous, and therefore, it should be interpreted according to its common usage. 31 Dictionaries define "appropriate" as: (1) "suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting"; (2) "right for the purpose; suitable; fit; proper"; and (3) "fitted to a purpose or use: suitable. " 32 These definitions demonstrate that an "appropriate" response to a government-data request may vary based on what is a "suitable" or "fitting" based 28 Minn. R , subp Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a). 30 See Minn. Stat (providing definitions for the MGDP A). 31 Minn. Stat (providing that words and phrases are construed according to their common and approved usage, but technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a special meaning are construed according to such special meaning or their definition). 32 The American Heritage Dictionary 88 (5th ed. 2011); Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary 70 (5th ed. 2014); The Meriam-Webster Dictionary 34 (7th ed. 2016). 11

17 on the "particular" request at issue. 33 Therefore, what is "appropriate" may depend on a variety of factors, including how general or broad the data-practices request is, the amount of staff time and financial resources that would be necessary for compliance with a particular request, and whether compliance with a particular request will significantly interfere with a political subdivision's effective government operation. In some situations, an appropriate response to a government-data request may be to comply with the original request as received without question or limitation. But the appropriate response to a government-data request that is unduly burdensome because it is either too general or too broad may be to offer to respond to a new request that has been reasonably limited. 34 It was appropriate for the County here, in response to Mr. Webster's unduly burdensome request, to offer to respond to a new request reasonably narrowed "in terms of time-frame, number of employees, and 33 The advisory opinions from the Commissioner of the Department of Administration that have considered the issue of whether political subdivisions are required to respond to unduly burdensome requests have failed to analyze the plain meaning of the statutory term "appropriate" in Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a). See Dept. Admin. Adv. Op ; Dept. Admin. Adv. Op ; Dept. Admin. Adv. Op Again, the FOIA is not controlling here. But for illustrative purposes, some government-data requests that federal courts have found to be "unreasonably burdensome" under the FOIA include: a page-by-page search through the 84,000 cubic feet of documents in the CIA records center (Goland v. C.I.A., 607 F.2d 339, 353 (D.D.C. 1978)); a search through every file in the possession of the IRS to see if a reference to Scientology appeared ( Church of Scientology v. I. R. S., 792 F.2d 146, 151 (D.D.C. 1986)); and a search of 3,500,000 files of patents, as well as well over a million of abandoned patent applications (Irons v. Schuyler, 465 F.2d 608, (D.D.C. 1972)). 12

18 search terms." 35 The County's response is also consistent with how many other cities and counties respond when confronted with similar government-data requests that are so general or so broad that compliance with them would be unduly burdensome. In 2016, for example, the city of Two Harbors received a government-data request that demanded it to search "all the public information" it maintained without restriction regarding date or document type for any information referencing a particular property. The government-data requestor effectively was using the city as a research assistant. The request provided: Researching the history of Parcel# (Burlington Bay Site). I need to see building permits, certificates of occupancy, documents of HAZMA T issues, etc. I want to see all the public information for this parcel. 36 In order to review "all the public information" that could potentially reference the property in question, city staff would have had to go through 150 years of government records, including paper records that are partially indexed on index cards that provide references to bound volumes of handwritten minutes. In response to this unduly burdensome request, the city clerk sent a responsive letter that did three appropriate things: (1) it described what actions she had taken to attempt to comply with the request; (2) it indicated that based on the general and broad nature of the request, there could still be some responsive government data that had not 35 Webster Test., Ex. 44, Add. at Amici ADD-1. 13

19 been produced; and (3) it offered to respond to a new, more specific request. The city clerk's responsive letter provided in part: At the outset, let me advise you that the City staff have devoted many hours attempting to respond to your request. This is the result of our efforts. As the City Clerk for the City of Two Harbors ("City"), I have reviewed and caused the City's records to be reviewed to attempt to locate building permits and certificates of occupancy with respect to Tax Parcel ID No The City has no data regarding building permits or certificates of occupancy for Tax Parcel ID No I also performed or caused a a [sic] Laserfische search of the City's records and could find no data containing the term "HAZMAT issues" for Tax Parcel ID No We also looked for other information using Tax Parcel ID No as reference and found the enclosed Agreement. The City may have other information in some way related to all or part of the property covered by Tax Parcel ID No that is not indexed or referenced under Tax Parcel ID No or not indexed or referenced under the topics that you specified in your request. If there are other specific topics you would like searched, please submit a new Data Request Form. 37 Two Harbors is a small city with a population of approximately 3,711, and it has a correspondingly small number of employees available to respond to government-data requests while at the same time fulfilling their many other duties. 38 Likewise, the other cities and counties in Minnesota have limited time and financial resources that they can expend in response to government-data requests without significantly interfering with their effective government operation. Therefore, when 37 Amici ADD-2-ADD Two Harbors is not unique. Based on League records, 496 of the 853 cities in Minnesota have a population of less than 1000 with a correspondingly small number of employees. 14

20 a city or county is confronted with an unduly burdensome government-data request, it responds in an "appropriate" manner, within the meaning of Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a), by offering to respond to a new request that has been reasonably narrowed. CONCLUSION The ALJ erred as a matter of law by holding that the MGDP A requires political subdivisions to comply with unduly burdensome requests that will significantly interfere with their effective government operation. Although the MGDP A does not provide an express exemption from compliance with "unduly burdensome" government-data requests, such an exemption must be implied based on the MGDPA's legislative intent and the plain meaning of the statutory language in Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a) that authorizes political subdivisions to provide an "appropriate" response to government-data requests. For all of these reasons, the League and the AMC respectfully request this Court to reverse the ALJ' s decision and hold that political subdivisions-when confronted with a data-practices request that is unduly burdensome because it is either too general regarding the government data that is being requested or too broad regarding the volume of government data that must be searched to comply with the request-responds in an "appropriate" manner, within the meaning of Minn. Stat , subd. 2(a), by offering to comply with a new request that has been reasonably narrowed. 15

21 Respectfully submitted, Dated: Sept. 1, 2016 League of Minnesota Cities Association of Minnesota Counties Susan 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN (651) Attorney for Amici Curiae 16

22 No. A STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Tony Webster, vs. Respondent, Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, CERTIFICATION OF LENGTH OF DOCUMENT Appellants/Relators. I certify that this document conforms to the requirements of the applicable rules, is produced with a proportional 13-point font, and the length of this document is 3,410 words. This document was prepared using Microsoft Office Word Dated: 9/1/ University Avenue West St. Paul, MN (651) snaughto@lmc.org Attorney for Amici Curiae League of Minnesota Cities Association of Minnesota Counties 17

23 ADDENDUM INDEX Page City of Two Harbors Information Disclosure Request Form ADD-1 Letter from Patricia Nordean to Douglas Leonard dated June 22, ADD-2

24 A C l edb R. ompict iv eauester REQUl!S'll!R. NAMB(Last. CITY OF TWO HARBORS INFORMATION DISCLOSURE REQUEST FORM Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Pint, M): DATBOPREQUBST: L 0/l//J RP~ C;IA,j la$ R. /)fr;/ 11,. ~ot(p STRBET ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBBR: ;3,-3q lrw-y 1 9 5:;). --:2. G" e.j<t. crrv, STATE. ZIP CODB: ~/_S10N7 ~f'/:i'/,,,~ /'?d 5530~ ~ - /(.e.& DB.9CRJPTJON OPTHEINFOR~ATlON REQUP.STBD: f:..ar d ir,~ rl.e hi.r"'111 di Fa"'ef.2:J -1t00-()6,oo tewbn/k.-t 811y.$;te-). I"' Ii.,.see b"",.;,1.~., certi (:cafe..t of PC,C, L<f :f. wa,.,i 1".s ti""<. "j,, doc-1a.r1 e,, Is ol 1-Jll:Z: ti /'7,4 T ;ss,.~ l fv, t.12. a II.nt ful:>/, (;.~~.. ~a t".'4'r1 {;,., IA,.s farr.-.e I. 1/o ~ B. Completed by Department PBPARThfBNT NAME: HANDLED SY: INFORMATION a.assipibd AS: ACTION: _ PUBUC _ NON PUBlJC _APPROVED NON PUB1JC _APPROVED _ CONPD>ll.NTIAL _DENIED _PRIVATB _ PROTBCTBD IN PART REMARKS OR BASIS FOR PENIALINCLUDINO STAT'UTESECflON : PKOTOCOPYINO CHAROl!S: Identity vcrlllcd tor prlvare _None _ IDBNTIFIC/\TION: DRIVERS UCIINSB. STATl! ID, ETC. PAGES X _CBNTS _ COMPARISON illformauon: WITH Sl0NA1lJRB ON Fn.B..:_ SPl!CIAL RA TB (attac:h cxplanauoll) _ Pl!RSONALKNOWLEDOE _ontbr AUTHORIZBD SlONATIJRE: DATI!: * The itj{ormation use of this itj{ormation lo provide this lnfonnatlon. You may refuse to provide this information. If you do 1tot provide the requested information w«will not be able to conlaci you to let you know wlien the response 10 your request has been completed. Other pusons or entities may be aurhorli.ed recel~ tlj/.t i,iformation. 1ha1 you are asked 10 provide i.r c/qssified u to consider your request. You are not legally required by stale law OJ public. Our purpose and Intended by law to ADD-1

25 CITY OF TWO HARBORS _ 522 First Avenue -Two Harbors, MN (218) FAX (218) Randy K. Bolen Mayor June 22, 2016 Douglas Leonard 1589 Hwy. 7 Hopkins, :MN RE: City of Two Harbors Information Disclosure Request Dear Mr. Leonard: This letter is in response to the City of Two Harbors Information Disclosure Request Form you submitted dated April 19, 2016 ("Request'') requesting the following: "Researching the history of Parcel# (Burlington Bay site). I need to see building permits, certificates of occupancy, documents of HAZMAT issues, etc. I want to see all the public information for this parcel." At the outset, let me advise you that the City staff have devoted many hours attempting to respond to your request. This is the result of our efforts. As the City Clerk for the City of Two Harbors ("City"), I have reviewed and caused the City's records to be reviewed to attempt to locate building permits and certificates of occupancy with respect to Tax Parcel ID No The City has no data regarding building permits or certificates of occupancy for Tax Parcel ID No I also performed or caused a a Laserfische search of the City's records and could find no data containing the term "HAZMAT issues" for Tax Parcel ID No We also looked for other information using Tax Parcel ID No. 23~ 7600w as reference and found the enclosed Agreement. ADD-2 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

26 / I The City may have other infonnation in some way related to all or part of the property covered by Tax Parcel ID No that is not indexed or referenced under Tax Parcel ID No or not indexed or referenced under the topics that you specified in your request. If there are other specific topics you would like searched, please submit a new Data Request Form. Patricia Nordean City Clerk Enclosure ADD-3 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

27 RE: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL Webster v. Hennepin County Appellate Court Case No.: A STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )s.s. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) FILED September 1, 2016 Office of Appellate Courts Susan L. Naughton, being first duly sworn, says that on the 1st day of September 2016 she served two copies of a: 1. Joint Brief of Amici Curiae by the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Minnesota Counties on the following attorneys by placing a copy in an envelope postage prepaid at 145 University Ave. West, St. Paul, MN addressed as follows: Randy M. Lebedoff Star Tribune 425 Portland Avenue South Minneapolis, MN Jennifer Lynch Electronic Frontier Foundation 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA Samuel Aintablian Briggs & Morgan P.A IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of September 2016 Gayle A. Wutschke Notary Public