You are here: / / Respondents Must Demonstrate Why Request Not Specific Enough For Extraction...

Respondents Must Demonstrate Why Request Not Specific Enough For Extraction from Electronic Documents/Claim that Documents Are Exempt from Disclosure Is Not Enough to Defeat the Request—Remedy Is In Camera Review

The Third Department determined the respondents should demonstrate why the descriptions of the documents sought by a FOIL request were insufficient for extraction from electronic documents.  With respect to respondents claim the information was exempt from disclosure, that assertion is not enough to defeat a FOIL request and the appropriate relief is an in camera review of the material alleged to be exempt:

We agree with respondents that a valid basis for denying the FOIL request has been established – at least with respect to the actual files – when they are not “indexed in a manner that would enable the identification and location of documents” … . Respondents have also indicated, however, that at least some of the files are maintained electronically. Despite this, they have offered no evidence to establish that the descriptions provided are insufficient for purposes of extracting or retrieving the requested document from the virtual files through an electronic word search of the former Assistant County Attorney’s name or other reasonable technological effort (see Public Officers § 89 [3] [a]…).  We also note that “the broad allegation here that the files contain exempt material is insufficient to overcome the presumption that the records are open for inspection” … . In the event that the requested record can be located electronically and respondents are able to establish that the document contains exempt material, the appropriate remedy is an in camera review and “disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material”… . Matter of Pflaum v Grattan, 516119, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

You might also like
IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Industrial Code Provision Which Prohibits Allowing an Employee to Use an “Elevated Working Surface Which Is In a Slippery Condition” Does Not Apply to Snow Removal/The Injury—a Slip and Fall While Shoveling Snow—Was Caused by “An Integral Part of the Work”
PATIENT ADVOCATES WHO ACCOMPANY THE CLIENTS OF PERSONAL INJURY LAW FIRMS TO INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED AWARDING CUSTODY TO STEPMOTHER WITH VISITATION BY BOTH PARENTS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED.
ORDER LIMITING TRIAL EVIDENCE WAS APPEALABLE.
FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cause of Action Stated Against Actuary Agent for Insurance Company Properly Found to Be an “Employee” Entitled...