A Marshalltown man with a lengthy history of filing extensive public records requests from government entities around the state of Iowa has sued the city over alleged “inconsistent representations and practices” regarding responses to such requests and a quote for almost $400,000 to comply with one of them.

Michael J. Merritt, a Navy veteran also known as “Cipher Hunter,” filed the petition in Marshall County District Court on Jan. 13 and is representing himself in the matter. The five-page complaint, he wrote, seeks to address the city of Marshalltown’s “use and representation of its electronic mail systems in a manner that impaired the examination and copying of public records and resulted in excessive and unsupported cost demands” in violation of Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code.

The suit goes on to allege that between at least August of 2022 and January of 2024 and continuing thereafter, the plaintiff submitted multiple public records requests seeking email records responsive to specific keywords, names and email addresses.

“In response to those requests, Defendant represented that compliance would require individualized searches of electronic mail accounts conducted by an information technology contractor rather than city staff. Defendant further represented that its electronic mail systems required approximately 15 minutes of labor per account per month per keyword searched and that searches could not be efficiently performed across multiple accounts administratively,” the suit reads. “Based on those representations, Defendant provided cost estimates for responding to Plaintiff’s requests that escalated into the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars and required substantial advance payment as a condition of processing these requests. On Jan. 18, 2024, Defendant responded to one such public records request by estimating that compliance would require over 3,000 hours of labor at contractor rates, resulting in a cost estimate of $397,440, exclusive of additional legal review costs. Defendant represented that payment of the estimated costs would be required in advance and that processing of the request would not proceed absent such payment.”

These demands, Merritt wrote, “delayed and effectively denied” his right to examine and copy the requested public records. At later dates, the city acknowledged and demonstrated that its electronic mail systems included administrative and cross-mailbox search capabilities that allowed email records to be searched across multiple accounts, and such searches were performed responsive to his requests without the use of an outside contractor, producing responsive records at little or no cost to the plaintiff.

“The electronic mail searches later performed administratively by Defendant were materially similar in nature to earlier requests for which Defendant had demanded extraordinary fees based on asserted technical limitations. Defendant’s later conduct demonstrated that its electronic mail systems were capable of retrieving responsive records without the individualized, labor-intensive process previously represented. Defendant’s inconsistent representations and practices regarding its electronic mail systems results in excessive and unsupported cost demands that were not reflective of the actual cost required to search for and produce public records,” the suit reads. “Defendant’s use and representation of its electronic data processing systems impaired the ability of the public, including Plaintiff, to examine and copy public records. Defendant continues to operate and control the same or substantially similar electronic mail systems and records-request processes. Absent judicial intervention, Defendant’s practices present a reasonable likelihood of continued or repeated impairment of public access to electronic mail records through excessive cost demands or misrepresentation of system capabilities.”

The suit concludes by asking that the court find the city in violation of Chapter 22, enter “appropriate injunctive relief” prohibiting the city from continuing or repeating the alleged practices that impair access to records, order the city to comply with Chapter 22 in future public records requests by ensuring that cost assessments and search practices do not function as “barriers to lawful public access,” and award plaintiff costs as permitted by law along with other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable.

In response to an email from the T-R, Marshalltown City Administrator Carol Webb said the city had no comment but had referred the matter to its legal team. Hearing and trial dates have not yet been set. According to reporting in the Iowa Capital Dispatch, Merritt previously engaged in a lengthy battle with the city of Newton and Jasper County over public records requests, triggering a series of complaints to the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) — all of which were dismissed — and prompting the agency to consider legislation that would allow government entities to ignore any public records requests submitted by “vexatious requesters” for up to one year. As of 2026, such a law has not been enacted.

During the public comment period of last Monday night’s regular city council meeting, Merritt stepped forward to the speaking podium, citing his past military service before referencing his ongoing public records investigation and outlining the lawsuit he recently filed.

“What I’ve experienced across the state of Iowa — and this doesn’t necessarily articulate towards this government body, per se — but what I’ve experienced is a paradigm of excessive fees when government bodies do not wish to release public records. At least that’s what it would seem,” he said. “I’ve been falsely accused of 12 crimes across the state of Iowa — 10 of which (were) during my public records investigation — and the paradigm I’ve experienced is that when elite members of the bureaucracy are put into a corner with evidence of their misconduct, they lash out with a narrative that is not supported by evidence against the person that’s bringing that evidence.”

He went on to note that the Iowa Attorney General’s Office has accused him of violating Section 718.3 of the state code pertaining to disrupting a government body. Merritt said that in addition to his lawsuit against the city, he will also be filing paperwork with the Office of Civil Rights and the Iowa AG’s office later this month for violations regarding public records access and civil rights, alleging misconduct by the AG’s office, the secretary of state and Gov. Kim Reynolds before he was cut off by Mayor Mike Ladehoff for surpassing his three-minute time limit.

——

Contact Robert Maharry at 641-753-6611 ext. 255 or rmaharry@timesrepublican.com.