25FC:0080 Ezra Sidran/ City of Davenport - Dismissal Order

Date:
07/17/2025

Subject: 
Ezra Sidran/ City of Davenport  - Dismissal Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On June 23, 2025, Ezra Sidran filed formal complaint 25FC:0080, alleging that the City of Davenport (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

On May 28, 2025, the complainant, Ezra Sidran submitted a Chapter 22 request with the City of Davenport through JustFOIA, an online, third-party request management site the City uses to accept electronic requests. The request sought “the deposition of former Davenport Corporation Counsel Tom Warner from the Diercks v. Davenport lawsuit.” This request was marked “Cancelled” on the JustFOIA request portal and closed without further communication or disclosure of records.

On June 23, 2025, Sidran filed formal complaint 25FC:0080, alleging the City had violated Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d) and HF 706 by unilaterally cancelling the Chapter 22 request without explanation.

The record in question is a deposition transcript from an unrelated Chapter 22 case in which the City was a defendant and the City’s former corporation counsel was deposed concerning his handling of a records request. Because the deposition is referenced in court decisions, it appears that the transcript was submitted to the court as part of the evidentiary record for the case.

Applicable Law

“‘Public records’ includes all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to this state or any county, city, township, school corporation, political subdivision, [etc.].” Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a).

“The [Iowa Public Information Board] shall not have jurisdiction over the judicial or legislative branches of state government or any entity, officer, or employee of those branches, or over the governor or the office of the governor.” Iowa Code § 23.12.

Analysis

The record at issue in this complaint was a deposition transcript, prepared during the process of discovery and submitted as evidence to the factual record for a case heard by the Iowa District Court for Scott County (later appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals). Although the City was a party to the case and the deponent was a former City employee, the transcript itself is a record “of or belonging” to the district court, meaning that the court is the lawful custodian. Release of this record would be subject to the judicial branch’s own rules, including any court orders or other specific restrictions which may or may not apply to this specific record. This is true regardless of whether the City has retained a copy of the transcript.

Iowa Code § 23.12 provides that IPIB does not have jurisdiction over the judicial branch or “any entity, officer, or employee” of the judiciary. Because the deposition transcript is a record of the judicial branch, IPIB cannot accept this complaint.

Conclusion

Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.

Because this complaint pertains to a request for a record of the judicial branch, the complaint is outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.12.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0080 is dismissed as outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b). 

Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(3), the IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.”  The IPIB will review this Order on July 17, 2025.  Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

By the IPIB Executive Director

_________________________

Erika Eckley, J.D.