Najam, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Jent filed a public records request with the Fort Wayne Police Department (“FWPD”), which the FWPD denied. Jent then filed a motion for declaratory and injunctive relief asking the trial court to compel the FWPD to disclose the requested records. Jent next moved for summary judgment, and the FWPD filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Jent’s motion and entered summary judgment for the FWPD. In this appeal, Jent contends that the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of the FWPD.
We affirm.
….
Section 3 of APRA provides: “Any person may inspect and copy the public records of any public agency during the regular business hours of the agency, except as provided in section 4 of this chapter.” Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3(a). But the requestor must “identify with reasonable particularity the record being requested.” Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3(a)(1). Section 4 in turn provides several exceptions to the disclosure requirement of Section 3. Section 4(a) sets forth mandatory exceptions to public access, and section 4(b) lists exceptions which may be invoked at the discretion of the public agency. It is undisputed that the FWPD is a public agency subject to APRA.
In support of its cross-motion for summary judgment, the FWPD asserted that it could not fulfill any part of Jent’s records request because the request does not comply with Indiana Code Section 5-14-3-3(a)(1), which requires that the request “identify with reasonable particularity the record being requested.” The “reasonable particularity” requirement under this statute has not previously been interpreted by an Indiana court. In the context of the discovery rules, however, a requested item has been designated with “reasonable particularity” if the request enables the subpoenaed party to identify what is sought and enables the trial court to determine whether there has been sufficient compliance with the request. In re WTHR-TV, 693 N.E.2d 1, 6 (Ind. 1998). Here, in essence, the FWPD contends that Jent’s request fails the first part of that test, namely, that it does not enable the FWPD to identify the records sought.
….
Affirmed.
RILEY, J., and DARDEN, Sr.J., concur.