Our District Clerk has received what appears to be an open records request for all Criminal case information (personal info, offense info, disposition info) for the last 7-10 years. They want it in electronic form. In order to do this my clerk would need to have her software reprogrammed. Any suggestions?

If I understand your question correctly, several PIA points become relevant:

1. The information in the court's file is excluded from the scope of the PIA because it is information held by an entity that is not a "governmental body." See Gov't Code sec. 552.003(1)(B). That's not to say it's not open to the public. It is (presumably, unless sealed). But it isn't subject to the disclosure and production requirements of the PIA. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-671 (2001) (information contained in district clerk's weekly index reports was derived from case disposition database that was "collected, assembled, or maintained ... for the judiciary" and therefore was not subject to PIA). If they want to see it, they can come to your courthouse and look at it. Or they can pay chapter 51 (Gov't Code) fees for copies or look at it over the Internet (if your clerk has implemented electronic docketing with Internet access).

2. Even if some of the information may be subject to the statute (which seems doubtful), it cannot be leveraged to force your clerk to spend the office's entire budget to purchase or amend software capable of satisfying the request. See Gov't Code sec. 552.231. Instead, the requestor must be sent a written statement within 20 days of receipt of the request stating that the information isn't available in the requested format, describing the format in which it is available, describing any contract or services that would be required to provide it in requested form, an estimate of costs for providing the information in requested form and an estimate of the time required to provide it in requested form. Simple as pie, eh?

3. Have your clerk estimate the charges for reproduction, including labor or personnel costs. Seven to ten years of criminal records probably will result in a fairly stiff bill. Then send the estimate. If the requestor doesn't notify you within 10 days that he/she accepts the estimated charges, will modify the request in response to the estimate or is filing a complaint with the Building & Procurement Commission, the request is considered withdrawn. See Gov't Code sec. 552.2615(b).

4. If the request asks for future records, politely remind the requestor that the PIA requires disclosure of existing records, not the creation of records to satisfy a request. Thus, a "running request" for information to be created in the future is improper under the act.

This sounds like an Innocence Project or someone trying to wear those trappings. Good luck in your dealings with them.

I recently requested an attorney general opinion on this information. There are now two opinions, the one I cited and mine that both say this information is kept for the judiciary and is NOT subject to the PIA. They are governed by other rules, but you do not have to give it to them in electronic format.

Our County/District Clerk received a request like this. I called the person who sent the letter, explained we are a small county and records aren't online, but they are free to come here and get what they need and that I was sure our Clerk and her staff of two could work weekends and nights to make copies and they could pay for that -- the woman on the other end of the phone was VERY pleasant and said OH NO, she didn't want to bother us, just wanted the information if it was readily available and could be put on a CD and sent to her. I think they just put it out there and see who bites.

Who, pray tell, is the "they" that are making these requests?

Our District Clerk got one too. It appeared to be from a back ground check company out of Dallas. I had her reply that she was not the custodian the records of the District Court, but that the local Administrative Judge was. (See the rules of court administration for clerks serving more than one judge.)

On one hand that probably just buys time, but on the other the Administrative Judge will probably answer the next request herself

That being said I'm not sure I'm happy to discover that the Clerk is not the custodian of the records in a multi judge setting. If defense counsel ever objects that a certified copy of a judgement is certified by the Clerk and not the Administrative Judge I guess I will argue that "custodian of records" has one meaning under the Rules of Evidence and another under the Administrative Court Rules.