Committee advances bill clarifying remedy for improper destruction of official records

House File 390, presented by Chair Scott, would add a cross‑reference in the Official Records Act directing aggrieved parties to remedies under the Data Practices Act when official records were improperly destroyed.

Chair Scott said the bill "codifies one of Minnesota's Supreme Court's data and records decisions by allowing data requesters to bring suits against government entities that improperly destroy official records before they are approved for destruction." Matt Ealing of Minnesotans for Open Government told the committee the bill merely makes the court's existing rule easier to find in statute and places the remedy in the Official Records Act by cross‑reference to the Data Practices Act.

Ealing described the legal background: a requester brought claims that reached the Minnesota Supreme Court, which concluded there is not a separate private right of action in the Official Records Act itself but that improper destruction of official records can be pursued through civil remedies in the Data Practices Act. The bill inserts a statutory cross‑reference so members of the public can identify the remedy in statute rather than having to consult case law.

Members asked about retroactivity and monetary relief. House nonpartisan counsel advised generally that laws are not applied retroactively unless the text says so; Mr. Hopkins said the bill contains no retroactivity language and thus would not apply to events before enactment. Mr. Ealing said damages under the Data Practices Act are difficult to quantify in cases of records destruction and that plaintiffs commonly seek nominal damages (for example, $1) when seeking other forms of relief.

Representative Liebling and others urged caution and asked for a fiscal note and additional vetting in State Government Finance; a motion to re‑refer the bill failed on a 6‑to‑7 roll call. Chair Scott then renewed his motion to recommend passage and placement on the general register; the committee voted in favor and the bill was placed on the general register as amended.

Committee discussion focused on whether the bill simply clarifies existing court law or creates a broader public‑interest private cause of action. Supporters described it as clarification and a navigational aid for the public; some members urged further review in State Government Finance before final action.