Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is denying an open records request filed by Indy Politics publisher Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, concerning documents as to why Shabazz was barred from Rokita's news oncferneces. Rokita says Shabazz was denied the records because he has filed suit against the Office and he can get those through discovery. Note, Shabazz filed his records request back in late October, months before litigation was filed.

1. STATE OF INDIANA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TODD ROKITA INDIANA GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH, FIFTH FLOOR TELEPHONE: 317.232.6201
INDIANA ATTORNEYGENERAL 302 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-2770 FAX: 317.232.7979
www.AttorneyGeneral.IN.gov
February 18, 2022
Abdul-Hakim Shabazz
Editor/Publisher
IndyPolitics.Org
Sent via email – abdul@indypolitics.org
RE: Public Records Request received October 28, 2021
Dear Mr. Shabazz:
This letter is to update you on your public records request received by the Office of the Indiana Attorney
General (“Office”) via hand-delivery on October 28, 2021. You specifically requested the following:
1. “Any and all documents (including lists, reports, memos, e-mails or other
compilations) regarding the credentialing of media that covers the Attorney
General.”
2. “Any and all documents (including lists, reports, e-mails, memos or other
compilations) describing the reasons for approving/denying media requests.”
3. “Any and all documents (including lists, reports, memos or other compilations)
regarding the interviews Attorney General Rokita has done since being sworn into
office in January 2021.”
4. “Any and all documents (including lists, e-mails, reports, memos or other
compilations) regarding the denying of media credentials of Abdul-Hakim’s
Shabazz’s/Indy Politics attendance of the October 14th
news conference on robocalls.”
5. “Any and all documents (including lists, e-mails, reports, memos or other
compilations) regarding Abdul-Hakim’s Shabazz/Indy Politics since January 2021.”
In response to our November 4, 2021, letter asking that you amend your request to include details that would
meet APRA’s reasonable particularity requirements, you offered the following amendments to the above request,
received by our Office on November 8, 2021:
“With respect to requests number 1, 2, 4 and 5, in the above correspondence, I am
requesting all correspondence between the Attorney General and his Chief of Staff,
as well as members of his press staff. The emails I am requesting are from six months
prior to this date.” (May 8, 2021, through November 8, 2021)
“With respect to requests number 3, I am requesting any media reports or summaries
of media correspondence/interviews between the Attorney General and members of
the Statehouse Press Corps as well as Indiana media.”

2. Our Office has given you updates about the status of our review. On November 9, 2022, we acknowledged
your amended request via email letter. That letter specified that a search of our records will be submitted to our IT
Department and once the records have been compiled, they will be reviewed for responsiveness and disclosability.
On January 4, 2022, you emailed our Office requesting a status update. On January 7, 2022, our Office responded via
email letter that your request remained pending and in review. As previously provided, our Office processes requests
in the order that they are received. On February 6, 2022, you emailed and requested a status update on your request.
On February 10, 2022, our Office responded with a status update on our review via email letter. That letter provided
that responsive and disclosable documents would be sent to you via email when reviewed. On February 7, 2022, you
filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General in the United States District Court Southern District of Indiana, under
Cause No. 1:22-cv-00268-JRS-MPB. On February 9, 2022, a motion for preliminary injunction was filed, which is
currently being briefed. The above referenced documents that you have requested are related to the subject matter of
this civil suit.
The public access counselor has repeatedly discouraged the use of the APRA as a substitute for discovery
when litigation is imminent or when the requestor and a state agency are parties to litigation. See Opinion of the
Public Access Counselor 20-FC-40. Consistent with the foregoing, the APRA is also not a pre-litigation evidence
gathering device. See Opinion of the Public Access Counselor 18-FC-14. In part, this is because certain records may
be obtained through the discovery process when a lawsuit is filed, which otherwise may be exempted from disclosure
under the APRA.1
Further, “[s]hould discovery attempts be muddled with APRA requests, the executive branch and
judicial branch are left to sort out disputes.” Opinion of the Public Access Counselor 20-FC-40. This emphasizes the
authority of the judiciary to maintain oversight on documents and records available through the discovery process
“when the parties may be at odds.” Id; see also Opinion of the Public Access Counselor 16-FC-160; Informal Opinion
of the Public Access Counselor 16-INF-22. Accordingly, the APRA is not the proper device for seeking records that
may be subject to disputes overseen by a trial court. See Opinion of the Public Access Counselor 17-FC-142.
Due to the foregoing, we are declining to respond any further regarding the above referenced request and
consider your request closed.
Sincerely,
John Walls
Chief Counsel, Advisory Division
Sent via email to:
Kenneth J. Falk
ACLU OF INDIANA
1031 E. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Email: kfalk@aclu-in.org
1
On February 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Matthew Brookman issued a Minute Order which, in part, set a discovery
deadline related to the briefing of your Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Discovery is currently set to be completed
by April 11, 2022.