Background
Robert E. Vanella, acting for the news organization The Delaware Call, submitted a Delaware Freedom of Information Act request seeking seven categories of records concerning Delaware State Police troopers. The requests covered current troopers’ names, salaries, ranks, prior employment, résumés, and demographic information, as well as information about former troopers. DSP denied the requests in full, relying on asserted record nonexistence and statutory exceptions concerning public safety, personnel files, and records protected by other statutes.
After the Chief Deputy Attorney General found no FOIA violation, Vanella appealed on the administrative record. The Superior Court ordered DSP to disclose current troopers’ names, ranks, and salaries but upheld the remaining denials. It later denied Vanella’s request for attorney fees and costs. DSP did not cross-appeal the disclosure order, while Vanella appealed the adverse records rulings and the denial of fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court held that DSP failed to carry its statutory burden concerning the employment-history and former-officer requests. Its affidavit neither adequately described the search for responsive records nor established that no records existed; indeed, it indicated that DSP possessed at least some responsive information. On remand, DSP must produce responsive records or provide a sworn account satisfying the search requirements established in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. University of Delaware.
The court also held that DSP could not withhold trooper résumés in their entirety merely because they were maintained in personnel files or contained some private information. DSP must disclose any résumés it possesses for current troopers, redacted to show only prior law-enforcement employers, job titles, and employment dates, unless it supports a denial with an adequate affidavit. The court further ordered DSP to produce each current trooper’s age, sex, and race under an anonymous alphanumeric identifier. Exporting existing electronic data and replacing names with identifiers did not constitute creating a new record, and Delaware’s police-officer statute did not exempt the information because a FOIA request is not a “civil proceeding.”
The court nevertheless affirmed the denial of attorney fees and costs. The majority held that Delaware FOIA authorizes fees for a successful “plaintiff” in an action, not for a petitioner who obtains judicial review through the statute’s distinct on-the-record appellate process for state-agency requests. Two justices dissented from that portion of the decision and would have allowed the Superior Court to consider a discretionary fee award.
Key Takeaways
- A Delaware public body claiming that responsive records do not exist generally must submit a sworn description of its search efforts and their results.
- FOIA requires disclosure of nonexempt portions of records; the presence of private information in a personnel file does not make the entire record exempt.
- Exporting existing database information and mechanically anonymizing it does not amount to creating a new record.
- A successful appellant in Delaware’s on-the-record FOIA review process for state-agency requests cannot recover attorney fees under Section 10005(d).
Why It Matters
The decision strengthens access to Delaware government records by clarifying that agencies cannot rely on conclusory assertions of nonexistence, generalized safety concerns, or the location of information within personnel files. It also confirms that agencies may be required to export and anonymize existing electronic data and to redact exempt material while releasing the remainder.
At the same time, the attorney-fee ruling creates a consequential distinction between FOIA litigants: citizens pursuing the mandatory administrative appeal route for state-agency requests may prevail without being eligible for fees, even though successful plaintiffs proceeding against other public bodies may receive them.