T J v. City of Providence, 051717 RIAGO, AGO PR 17-30

• Case Date: May 17, 2017
• Court: Rhode Island

T J v. City of Providence AGO PR 17-30 No. PR 17-30 Rhode Island Attorney General Opinions State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations May 17, 2017           Mario M. Martone, Esq.           Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General          Re: T J v. City of Providence          Dear TJ:          The investigation into your Access to Public Records Act ("APRA") complaint filed against the City of Providence ("City") is complete. You allege the City violated the APRA with respect to two (2) APRA requests you made on October 16, 2016. With respect to your request relating to a tobacco license, you allege, notwithstanding the City's response that it did not maintain responsive documents, the City, by its own ordinance, should maintain this document. With respect to your request regarding Club Therapy, you allege the City extended the time to respond, but did not do so with sufficient particularity. You also submit that the City's response was untimely.          In response to your complaint, we received a substantive response, in affidavit form, from Assistant City Solicitor, Mario M. Martone, Esquire, who also provided an affidavit from the Licensing Administrator for the City, Ms. Serena Conley. Solicitor Martone states, in pertinent part:

"On Sunday, October 16, 2016, the Law Department received two APRA requests from 'TJ' numbered 16-549 and 16-550. * * *

The due date for the response for both requests was October 31, 2016 as the request was received on a Sunday; Day 0 for calendaring purposes was Monday, October 17, 2016. Ten business days after that would be October 31,2016.

On the tenth business day, October 31, 2016, a response was provided to 'TJ' for request number 16-549 requesting an additional twenty (20) business days (until November 29, 2016) to respond pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 38-2-3(e) due to the number of requests pending and the difficulty in searching for or retrieving or copying the requested records. * * *

The City provided two reasons for the request for extension. * * *

On November 29, 2016 the records in redacted format were provided to the requestor and no documents were withheld. * * *

On the tenth day, October 31, 2016, a response was provided to 'TJ' for request number 16-550 that there were no responsive documents for this request. The City used the standard language that 'The City does not maintain documents responsive to this request.' * * *

Subsequent to the response to request number 16-550 the requestor posed a follow up question with regard to whether the City maintained a

...