The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Justin Brady, Complainants And Concerning: Des Moines Public School District, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0194 Investigative Report
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report:
On December 1, 2025, Justin Brady (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 25FC:0194, alleging that the Des Moines Public School District (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on December 18, 2025.
Facts
On October 2, 2025, Complainant sent a records request to the records custodian at the District as follows:
“All email communications (including subject, body, and attachments) sent or received between September 25, 2025 and October 2, 2025 by middle school and high school teachers, principals, and assistant principals that contain any of the following keywords: “protest" Dr. Roberts" “walkout,” “demonstration,” or “organize.” Please provide records in electronic format, with email threads deduplicated when possible. If any portion is withheld, please cite the specific exemption relied upon and release all reasonably segregable portions. If costs are expected to exceed $200, please provide an estimate in advance. If FERPA or personally identifiable student information must be redacted, please produce redacted versions rather than withholding entire messages.”
Respondent acknowledged the request the following day and notified the requestor that they hoped to have a fee estimate to him the following week, but “due to the high volume of requests received since last week, processing may take additional time.” It should be noted that due to the high-profile arrest of the superintendent, the District was receiving an unprecedented number of requests. Respondent also informed the Complainant they were answering requests in the order received.
On October 14th (12 days after receipt of the request) Respondent followed up to notify the Complainant that the search yielded over 20,000 pages of emails, which would run into the thousands of dollars in fees. The requestor was given an opportunity to modify or narrow his request.
On October 14th, Complainant responded and wrote:
“To help reduce both volume and cost, please first produce an index or metadata list (From, To, CC, Subject, Date) of matching messages so I can identify which threads warrant full review. I will then request rolling production as they’re cleared. This will reduce the time and cost required to process the request. Please provide a revised cost estimate based on this narrower scope before proceeding.”
In a separate email the same day he also asked to remove the search terms “organize” and “demonstration.”
On October 30, 2025, the records custodian emailed Complainant to let him know that the metadata he requested had been organized into a spreadsheet with 1,138 lines that had to be reviewed and redacted of confidential student information. The records custodian also stated, “We estimate it will take another week or so [to] complete, yet wanted you to know we are working on it.”
On November 14, 2025, the records custodian reached out again to let the Complainant know they were still working on the redaction of the metadata spreadsheet and estimate an additional week of work. The same day, Complainant emailed back and said, “Because Iowa Code Section 22.8(4)(d) allows a ‘good-faith, reasonable delay’ of up to 20 calendar days, and ordinarily no more than 10 business days, this will be reported to the Iowa Public Information Board by Wednesday of next week.”
This complaint was filed on December 1, 2025. Respondent provided the metadata spreadsheet on December 4, 2025 at no cost for the production or legal services for redaction. The Complainant never followed up with the Respondent identifying the specific email records he wanted from the index.
Upon the opening of this investigation, Respondent informed IPIB that they had no “index” record of the sort requested by the Complainant and it had to be created by the Respondent from other records. They provided the spreadsheet they created for him, which had to be reviewed and redacted, at no cost. The Respondent also made clear they remained ready to fulfill his narrowed request whenever he made it.
In response to this investigative report, Complainant alleged he still didn’t have “what I asked for.” IPIB staff informed him no information had been provided to IPIB that he had followed up after his October 14th metadata index request was fulfilled with a narrowed request. Staff requested any existing information that a subsequent request had gone unfilled. No further information was provided to IPIB.
Applicable Law
“Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in a public record. Unless otherwise provided for by law, the right to examine a public record shall include the right to examine a public record without charge while the public record is in the physical possession of the custodian of the public record. The right to copy a public record shall include the right to make photographs or photographic copies while the public record is in the possession of the custodian of the public record. All rights under this section are in addition to the right to obtain a certified copy of a public record under section 622.46.” Iowa Code 22.2(1)
“All reasonable expenses of the examination and copying shall be paid by the person desiring to examine or copy….The fee for the copying service as determined by the lawful custodian shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. Actual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records. Actual costs shall not include charges for ordinary expenses or costs such as employment benefits, depreciation, maintenance, electricity, or insurance associated with the administration of the office of the lawful custodian. Costs for legal services should only be utilized for the redaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” Iowa Code 22.3(2).
Analysis
Unreasonable Delay
Iowa Code 22 is silent on the exact deadline to produce a public record. Instead, whether a response time is reasonable depends on the factual circumstances of each case. In Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, the Court looked to the Uniform Rules on Agency Procedure to apply the following standard to Chapter 22 production deadlines:
Access to an open record shall be provided promptly upon request unless the size or nature of the request makes prompt access infeasible. If the size or nature of the request for access to an open record requires time for compliance, the custodian shall comply with the request as soon as feasible.
834 N.W.2d 444, 461 (Iowa 2013).
The Court further found that “practical considerations can enter into the time required for responding to an open records request, including ‘the size or nature of the request.’ But the records must be provided promptly, unless the size or nature of the request makes that infeasible.” Id.
The Complainant alleges that Respondent’s reply to their request constitutes an unreasonable delay because it took more than twenty days for the Respondent to produce the metadata spreadsheet and because he still hasn’t received his original request. The Complainant modified and narrowed his request on October 14, 2025. A new record collecting pieces of other records was created for the requestor, redacted of student and other confidential information, and produced fifty-one days later. Additionally, Respondent demonstrated prompt acknowledgement and created a new record to assist the Complainant in narrowing his request and reducing the cost – an action not required under Chapter 22. They provided two updates after Complainant submitted the modified request on October 14th regarding anticipated delays. The Complainant never submitted a follow up request to the Respondent after receiving the spreadsheet with which specific emails he wanted produced or any other new or modified request. The only item requested was created and produced.
Taking all of these items into consideration, including that the request required the creation of a new record, the large volume of student information that had to be reviewed for confidential material, the prompt acknowledgement of the request, and ongoing communications about potential delays, the Respondent did not engage in an unreasonable delay by producing the metadata spreadsheet fifty-one days after it was requested Respondent met the legal requirements of Chapter 22 and did not engage in an unreasonable delay.
IPIB Action
The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:
Redirect the matter for further investigation;
Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).
Recommendation
Because the Respondent did not engage in an unreasonable delay by producing the new and redacted spreadsheet fifty-one days after it was requested, no violation of Chapter 22’s requirement occurred, and it is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause.
By the IPIB Deputy Director,
_________________________
Charisa Flege, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on April 9, 2026, to:
Justin Brady, Complainants
Des Moines Public School District, Respondent
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Justin Brady, Complainant And Concerning: Des Moines Public School District, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0194 Probable Cause Order
|
|---|
Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:
☐a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
☒b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
☐c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
☐d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.
By the Board Chair
___________________________________
Catherine Lucas
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on April 17, 2026, to:
Justin Brady, Complainant
Des Moines Public School District, Respondent
Areas Served
- Scott