# Arkansas FOIA Electronic Records and Vendor Custody Arkansas FOIA reaches existing electronic public records and records under a public body's administrative control. It distinguishes a copy in a readily available or readily convertible format from a new compilation or tailored query. ## Vendor custody and the proper defendant *Apprentice Information Systems v. DataScout* holds that a vendor used solely for storage, safekeeping, or data processing is not the statutory custodian; the public official retains the initial duty to determine whether routinely kept electronic records are public and accessible. *Nabholz Construction* adds that a private contractor cannot be sued alone under FOIA, while a public body may not circumvent the Act by handing records to a private entity. *Swaney* and *Fox* require reasonable access arrangements for existing, nonexempt public records even when a contractor physically holds them or the official lacks physical possession. None of those cases makes every vendor dataset public or requires a nonexistent export to be created. (web research 2026-08-10, [Apprentice Information Systems v. DataScout](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/app.midpage.ai/apprentice-info-sys-inc-v-datascout-llc-544-s-w-3d-39-ark-2018.md)); (web research 2026-08-10, [Nabholz Construction v. Contractors for Public Protection Association](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/app.midpage.ai/nabholz-construction-corp-v-contractors-for-public-protection-ass-n-266-s-w-3d-689-ark-2007.md)); (web research 2026-08-10, [Swaney v. Tilford](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/app.midpage.ai/swaney-v-tilford-898-s-w-2d-462-ark-1995.md)); (web research 2026-08-10, [Fox v. Perroni](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/caselaw.findlaw.com/fox-v-perroni-188-s-w-3d-881-ark-2004.md)) ## Existing records, format, and special queries Section 25-19-105(d)(2) requires a copy in a medium in which an existing record is readily available or a format to which it is readily convertible with the custodian's existing software. It does not require creation of a new record. Section 25-19-109 separately lets a custodian agree, at the custodian's discretion, to summarize, compile, tailor, or specially convert electronic data, with specified personnel charges after two hours. (primary public record, [Ark. Code Ann. sections 25-19-105 and -109](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/media.ark.org/ark-code-ann-25-19-105-2025-2026-annotated-laws.md)) An existing saved CSV, database record, report, or notification can be responsive even if it is electronic. A new parameterized query or never-created export may fall on the discretionary side. The console button labeled “Export” does not answer existence, administrative control, ready convertibility, or exemption. *Daugherty v. Jacksonville Police Department* holds that a sufficiently specific request cannot be refused simply as burdensome and that existing files readily convertible with existing software remain records; it also states that FOIA is not itself a records-retention statute. *Pulaski County Special School District v. Delaney* holds that an agency cannot choose a different medium merely because volume or redaction makes its preferred format easier, when the requested conversion is readily achievable. Those holdings do not require scanning or software work that creates a new record in every case. (web research 2026-08-10, [Daugherty v. Jacksonville Police Department](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/app.midpage.ai/daugherty-v-jacksonville-police-department-411-s-w-3d-196-ark-2012.md)); (web research 2026-08-10, [Pulaski County Special School District v. Delaney](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/app.midpage.ai/pulaski-cnty-special-sch-dist-v-delaney-575-s-w-3d-420-ark-ct-app-2019.md)) ## Timing Arkansas FOIA does not give every request a blanket three-business-day response period. When a record is in active use or storage, the custodian must certify that fact in writing and set a time within three working days when it will be available. Other requests remain subject to prompt reasonable access under the statute. See [[Arkansas FOIA Enforcement and Custodian Response Procedure]]. ## Disclosure boundary in this corpus - Conway and LRPD records show agencies asking vendors to export, explain, or administer platform records. Those Tier-1 records establish conduct; public-record status still turns on existence, official function or control, and exemptions. - Finkenbinder and CPD documented competing readings of Conway's audit and access records. Those are municipal positions, not controlling interpretations ([[City Attorney Review of ALPR Records Requests]], pp. 3–5; [[T046 - Conway City Attorney Disclosure Advice vs CPD Categorical ALPR Audit Withholding]]). - Fayetteville's trial agreement assigned operational trial-data control to the vendor. That clause alone does not resolve whether responsive public records existed or remained accessible when requested. See [[Vendor-Controlled ALPR Trial Data]]. ## Notes This page states evidence-analysis boundaries, not legal advice. “Native format,” “vendor custody,” “three days,” and “export” are not categorical shortcuts; each proposition depends on the statute's precise trigger and the record facts. ## Current-law authority crosswalk The 2026-08-10 legal audit uses these authorities only for the bounded propositions stated below: - (primary public record, [Arkansas Freedom of Information Act Handbook, 21st ed. (2025)](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/healthy.arkansas.gov/arkansas-foia-handbook-21st-edition-2025.md)) — Current Arkansas FOIA response, segregation, format, judicial-remedy, and fee rules; the handbook is used as an official current-law guide rather than as evidence of agency conduct.