Before a complaint is filed there is no discovery. No interrogatories, no document requests, no subpoenas. In Minnesota, though, there is chapter 13 — the Government Data Practices Act — and against a city, county, or state agency it does much of what discovery does, without a case number and without a filing fee.
The default is access. Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1 provides that “[a]ll government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential.” The same subdivision requires the responsible authority to keep records “in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.”
Everything useful in the chapter turns on three things: which request you are making, what the entity must do in response, and what happens when it does not.
Two different requests, two different rules
This is the distinction that decides most chapter 13 problems, and it is routinely collapsed.
A public-data request under § 13.03, subd. 3 is a request by anyone for data that are public. “Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data’s meaning.” Inspection is free: “If a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data.” Copies are not, but the charge is constrained — the entity “may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time,” but “may not charge for separating public from not public data,” and “if 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter or legal size paper copies are requested, actual costs shall not be used, and instead, the responsible authority may charge no more than 25 cents for each page copied.”
There is no fixed deadline on a public-data request. Section 13.03, subd. 2(a) requires procedures ensuring that requests “are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner,” and subd. 3(c) says that if copies cannot be provided at the time of the request, “copies shall be supplied as soon as reasonably possible.” Those are standards, not day counts. Anyone who tells you Minnesota has a ten-day public-records deadline is describing a different statute.
A data-subject request under § 13.04, subd. 3 is different in kind, and it does carry a deadline. On request, “an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential.” An individual who is the subject of stored private or public data “shall be shown the data without any charge and, if desired, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data.” Copies must be provided on request, at the actual cost of making and certifying them.
Then the deadline: “The responsible authority or designee shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible.” One limit: after an individual has been shown private data and informed of its meaning, “the data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created.”
So if you were in the encounter, in the file, or the subject of the report, do not send a general public-data request. Send a data-subject request, invoke § 13.04, subd. 3, and start the clock.
The denial paragraph is the most useful sentence in the chapter
Section 13.03, subd. 3(f) is worth memorizing:
“If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based.”
A denial without a specific statutory citation does not comply with subd. 3(f). Ask for the written certification every time. It forces the entity to commit to a legal theory in writing, early, and produces a document you will still be using two years later.
Then read the section it cites. Under § 13.02, “[p]rivate data on individuals” are “not public” but “accessible to the individual subject of those data” — so a private classification is often good news. Under § 13.03, subd. 9, “[u]nless otherwise expressly provided by a particular statute, the classification of data is determined by the law applicable to the data at the time a request for access to the data is made, regardless of the data’s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received.” A denial today is not a denial forever.
The law-enforcement overlay
Section 13.82 reclassifies a great deal of what a police department holds, in both directions.
Public regardless of the investigation: arrest data under subd. 2, “public at all times in the originating agency”; request-for-service data under subd. 3, including “the nature of the request or the activity complained of”; response or incident data under subd. 6, including “a brief factual reconstruction of events associated with the action”; and booking photographs under subd. 26(b). Under subd. 31, the existence of any agency technology “that may be used to electronically capture an audio, video, photographic, or other record of the activities of the general public” is public.
Not public while an investigation runs: subd. 7 makes investigative data “confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active,” and defines the three events that make it inactive. Deliberative-process data are confidential or protected nonpublic under subd. 25, “provided that information, reports, or memoranda that have been adopted as the final opinion or justification for a decision of a law enforcement agency are public data.”
Two special routes are easy to miss. Under subd. 4, the audio of a 911 call is private with respect to the caller, but “a written transcript of the audio recording is public, unless it reveals the identity of an individual otherwise protected under subdivision 17,” and “[a] transcript shall be prepared upon request” at the requester’s cost. Under subd. 13, on written request the prosecuting authority — not the police department — “shall release investigative data collected by a law enforcement agency to the victim of a criminal act or alleged criminal act or to the victim’s legal representative,” unless release is barred by § 13.821 or the prosecutor reasonably believes it “will interfere with the investigation.”
Subdivision 14 carries its own remedy: where an agency temporarily withholds response or incident data on the ground that public access “would be likely to endanger the physical safety of an individual or cause a perpetrator to flee, evade detection or destroy evidence,” it must on request “provide a statement which explains the necessity for its action,” and any person may apply to district court, which if it finds the action unreasonable “shall order the release of the data and may award costs and attorney’s fees to the person who sought the order.” Body-worn camera footage has its own section and its own retention clock — see Minnesota body-camera data under § 13.825.
Personnel data: the complaint is public even when the outcome is not
Section 13.43, subd. 2(a) makes eight categories of personnel data public. Two matter here. Clause (4) makes public “the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action” — a live request even where nothing came of the complaint.
Clause (5) makes public “the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body.” Paragraph (b) defines when that switch flips: final disposition “occurs when the government entity makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings,” and in arbitration “at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.” Critically: “A disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.”
Two enforcement tracks, plus an advisory one
District court, § 13.08. Notwithstanding § 466.03, an entity that violates the chapter “is liable to a person … who suffers any damage as a result of the violation,” for damages “plus costs and reasonable attorney fees,” and for exemplary damages “of not less than $1,000, nor more than $15,000 for each violation” in the case of a willful violation. Subdivision 1 adds that “[t]he state is deemed to have waived any immunity to a cause of action brought under this chapter.” Subdivision 2 authorizes injunctive relief.
Subdivision 4 is the access remedy: “any aggrieved person seeking to enforce the person’s rights under this chapter or obtain access to data may bring an action in district court to compel compliance with this chapter and may recover costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.” The court “may impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 against the government entity,” and “[t]he matter shall be heard as soon as possible.” The risk runs both ways: if the court finds the action “frivolous and without merit and a basis in fact, it may award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the responsible authority.”
The Office of Administrative Hearings, § 13.085. An action to compel compliance may be brought under § 13.08, subd. 4 or under § 13.085. The OAH track moves faster but is front-loaded: the complaint must be filed “within two years after the occurrence of the act or failure to act” (with a one-year window from discovery where the entity’s concealment or misrepresentation prevented discovery), must be “made in writing, submitted under oath,” and “must be accompanied by a filing fee of $1,000 or a bond to guarantee the payment of this fee.” The respondent answers within 15 business days; an ALJ makes a probable-cause determination within 20 business days; a hearing follows within 30 business days; a decision issues within 10 business days after the record closes. Dispositions include a civil penalty “of up to $300” and an order compelling compliance.
Subdivision 6 creates “a rebuttable presumption … that a complainant who substantially prevails on the merits … is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees, not to exceed $5,000,” which “may be denied if the judge determines that the violation is merely technical or that there is a genuine uncertainty about the meaning of the governing law.” A frivolous or harassing complaint runs the other way, up to $5,000 against the complainant. Note also that “[a] decision of the office under this section is not controlling in any subsequent action brought in district court alleging the same violation and seeking damages.”
Advisory opinions, § 13.072. Any person who disagrees with an entity’s data-practices determination may ask the Commissioner of Administration for a written opinion. If the commissioner does not decline within five business days, an opinion issues “within 50 days of receipt of the request.” Opinions “are not binding on the government entity … but an opinion described in subdivision 1, paragraph (a), must be given deference by a court or other tribunal in a proceeding involving the data.”
That deference cuts both ways. An entity acting in conformity with an opinion “is not liable for compensatory or exemplary damages or awards of attorneys fees” under § 13.08 or § 13.085. But under § 13.08, subd. 4(c), a court “shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff” where the defendant entity “was also the subject of a written opinion issued under section 13.072” and the court finds the opinion directly related and not followed. Getting an opinion first can convert a discretionary fee award into a mandatory one.
Why this matters before a lawsuit
A claim against a Minnesota public entity is usually decided by what the entity’s own records show, and those records exist long before the complaint does. Chapter 13 lets you get the arrest and incident data, the 911 transcript, the complaint history against the officer, the final disciplinary disposition, and the agency’s written policies — and to force a written, statute-citing denial for everything else. That paper is what tells you whether there is a case at all. The limitations analysis is a separate problem, taken up in the § 1983 limitations period in Minnesota, and the record you build here is the same record that governs false arrest and probable cause. Chapter 13’s reach beyond government is covered in Minnesota’s three privacy regimes, and health records in Minnesota medical records and privacy.
Madgett Law, LLC litigates civil rights and police misconduct claims in Minnesota state and federal court and handles Data Practices Act requests and denials. If a government entity has refused you access to records or will not certify a denial in writing, send us a message or call 612-470-6529.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 12 (definition of private data on individuals); § 13.03 (subd. 1, presumption of public data and the accessibility duty; subd. 2(a), prompt-response procedures; subd. 3(a), inspection and the bar on inspection fees; subd. 3(c), copy costs, no charge for separating public from not public data, the 25-cent cap at 100 or fewer black-and-white letter or legal pages, and “as soon as reasonably possible”; subd. 3(f), denial must cite the specific statutory section and must be certified in writing on request; subd. 9, classification determined by the law applicable at the time of the request); § 13.04, subd. 3 (data-subject access; no charge to be shown the data; compliance immediately if possible or within ten days excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; six-month re-disclosure limit); § 13.072 (subd. 1(a) and (c), who may request an opinion and the five-business-day and 50-day periods; subd. 2, deference, non-binding effect, and immunity for conformity); § 13.08 (subd. 1, damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees, exemplary damages of not less than $1,000 nor more than $15,000 for a willful violation, the § 466.03 override, and the state’s waiver of immunity; subd. 2, injunction; subd. 4(a), action to compel compliance, fees, the $1,000 civil penalty, and the frivolous-action fee shift; subd. 4(c), mandatory fees where a § 13.072 opinion was not followed); § 13.085 (subd. 2(a)–(c), scope, two-year filing period, oath, and $1,000 filing fee or bond; subd. 2(f), 15-business-day response; subd. 3(a), 20-business-day probable-cause review; subd. 4(a), 30-business-day hearing; subd. 5(a), (c), (e), dispositions including the $300 civil penalty, ten-business-day decision, and no controlling effect in district court; subd. 6(a) and (e), the $5,000 fee presumption and the frivolous-complaint fee shift); § 13.43, subd. 2(a), clauses (4) and (5), and subd. 2(b) (final disposition, arbitration, and reversal by an arbitrator); § 13.82 (subd. 2, arrest data; subd. 3, request for service data; subd. 4, 911 audio and transcript; subd. 6, response or incident data; subd. 7, criminal investigative data; subd. 13, crime-victim access through the prosecuting authority; subd. 14, temporary withholding, explanatory statement, and fee award; subd. 25, deliberative processes; subd. 26(b), booking photographs; subd. 31, surveillance technology) — all from the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes.
This article is general legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Which classification applies to a particular record, and which remedy is available, depends on the entity, the data, and the timing. No outcome is promised or implied.