Complainant alleged that the WGFD violated the APRA when it failed to produce documents responsive to his request. This Department has long held that "in order for this Department to have jurisdiction to inquire into an APRA matter, the complainant must first have requested a record from a public body, and second, the complainant must have been denied access to the requested record." Schmidt v. Ashaway Volunteer Fire Association et. al., PR 99-21. Because there was no evidence or indication that the Complainant had made the request at issue, he lacked standing to complain about alleged violations stemming from the request. We additionally found that the request was not a cognizable request under the APRA because it would require a series of conclusions and assumptions by the WGFD that goes beyond the scope of an APRA request.
