Robert Burks, Respondent/Cross-appellant v. Metropolitan Council, Appellant/Cross-respondent., 884 N.W.2d 338

Metro Transit buses have multi-camera digital recording systems that store video for limited periods unless downloaded and saved.
On Nov. 15, 2013, Robert Burks (a blind passenger) was involved in an altercation with a Metro Transit bus driver; officers escorted him off the bus but did not cite or charge him.
Burks complained by phone and then, through counsel, requested a copy of the bus video recording of the incident; Metro Transit refused, claiming the video is private personnel data about the driver and requiring a court order.
Burks sued under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Data Practices Act), seeking an order compelling release of the recording; the district court ordered disclosure, and the court of appeals affirmed.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review on whether the recording is private personnel data, and Burks cross-argued he is entitled to the recording as an "individual subject of the data" under Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 3.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Burks, as an identifiable subject in the video, has a statutory right to access the recording under Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 3	Burks argued § 13.04(3) grants any individual who is the subject of stored public or private data a right to view and obtain copies, even if other individuals are also identifiable	Metro Council argued the statute should not apply when the data also identify other subjects (e.g., the driver), and driver privacy interests outweigh Burks’s access right	Court held § 13.04(3) permits access by an identifiable individual subject even when the data identify multiple individuals; Burks is entitled to the recording
Whether the recording is private personnel data that must be withheld under Minn. Stat. § 13.43	Burks maintained access is required regardless of classification (public or private) because § 13.04(3) provides a subject’s right	Metro Council contended the recording is private personnel data about the driver and thus not subject to disclosure	Court declined to resolve classification as determinative; access under § 13.04(3) is required even if data are private personnel data

Wiegel v. City of St. Paul, 639 N.W.2d 378 (Minn. 2002) (individual subjects of private data are entitled to access as a matter of right)
State v. Hohenwald, 815 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 2012) (definite article "the" is a word of limitation in statutory interpretation)
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 776 N.W.2d 431 (Minn. 2009) (canon that singular includes plural and vice versa applies in statutory construction)