Stephen W. Rimmer, Esq.
Office of the Attorney GeneralFebruary 10, 1994
1994 WL 68337 (Miss.A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi
*1 Opinion No. 93-0975
*1 February 10, 1994
RE: OPEN RECORDS
*1 Stephen W. Rimmer, Esq.
*1 Madison City Attorney
*1 1290 Deposit Guaranty Plaza
*1 210 East Capitol Street
*1 Jackson, MS 39201–2302
Dear Mr. Rimmer:
*1 Attorney General Mike Moore has received your letter of request and has assigned it to me for research and reply. Your letter poses the following matter for consideration:
*1 The City is considering a possible agreement with the Central Mississippi Planning and Development District (“CMPDD” or “the District”) in regard to various municipal planning and mapping projects. Upon entering into such contracts, digital mapping data will be produced by the District which normally copyrights all of its work product, retains ownership and houses this source data at its offices. We are considering the execution of Memorandum of Agreement which provides that the digital data will remain in the ownership of the District, but that the City will have the right to access that information for our internal use only.
*1 My specific questions are as follows:
*1 1. Under the current open records law, can a local governmental body restrict accessibility by the general public to computerized data owned and maintained by that body?
*1 2. If the local governmental body must release this data which may be in computerized form, is it required to release the information in the manner or format requested by the public if there is no additional cost or technology problem?
*1 3. Can the local governmental body charge for these services in excess of the actual amount of time or out-of-pocket expenses necessary to reproduce this information?
*1 4. If this information, such as a map, was developed by an independent third party who is not a public body and maintains copyright protection over such information, can that third party, such as a Planning and Development District place restrictions on how this information is released or used?
*1 In response to your first question, we attach and incorporate herein the prior opinion of this office to the Honorable Dick Molpus dated January 16, 1990. The gist of that opinion is that computerized data is to be treated like any other public record in the possession or control of the public body. As such, the data is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act of 1983 as amended. The public body may not restrict access to the data unless the data is protected under the Public Records Act or by other statute.
*1 Concerning your second question, we attach and incorporate herein the prior opinion of this office to Honorable W.L. Lee dated April 17, 1991. That opinion concludes that the public body must, when reasonably possible, provide the public record or information in the format requested provided such format is reasonably available. However, it is not required to do so if such would require a significant intrusion into the business of the public body, provided the information can be provided in some other medium.
*2 In answer to your third question, we are unaware of any general provision under state law empowering public bodies to impose fees or charges for compliance with open records request except to recover reasonable and necessary expenses associated with retrieval, copying, etc.
*2 Finally, responsive to your fourth and final question, we attach and incorporate herein the prior opinion of this office to Mr. Frank C. Stebbins dated April 3, 1992. Consistent with that opinion, public bodies may restrict copying of proprietary computer data such as digital mapping data that were developed and copyrighted by private third parties.
Note
TO RETRIEVE THE FULL TEXT OF THE ATTACHED OPINION(S) SET FORTH AT THIS POINT, ENTER THE FOLLOWING FIELD SEARCH:
DA(4–17–1991) & PR(W.L. +2 Lee)
DA(1–16–1990) & PR(Dick +2 Molpus)
DA(4–3–1992) & PR(Frank +2 Stebbins)
1994 WL 68337 (Miss.A.G.)
| End of Document |