And why confusing the two costs you leverage

One of the most common mistakes people make is treating a Public Records Request (PRR) like it’s discovery-lite.

It isn’t.

Discovery is a court-controlled process.
Public records is a constitutional obligation.

That distinction is not academic. It’s structural. And it determines who has leverage.

Discovery: answers on their terms

Discovery happens after a lawsuit starts.

It is:

• party-to-party
• governed by civil rules
• full of objections, proportionality fights, and delay

You ask questions.
They answer, evade, or object.
Judges referee.

Discovery is reactive. You’re already inside the system.

Public Records Requests: structure on yours

Public records exist before litigation and outside it.

They are:

• custodian-driven, not adversarial
• limited to existing records
• binary by design

No explanations.
No narratives.
No testimony.

Either a record exists, or it doesn’t.

That binary outcome is not a weakness.
It’s the pressure point.

Why “this feels like discovery” is not a legal argument

When an agency says a PRR “sounds like discovery,” what they usually mean is:

“This request maps how we make decisions.”

Good.

A properly written PRR does not ask why something happened.
It asks what records would have to exist if it did.

If the records exist, they produce them.
If they don’t, the absence becomes evidence.

That is not discovery.
That is institutional self-description.

The Digital Artifact (the part most people miss)

Here’s the critical concept.

A PRR is not just a request.
It is a write operation.

The moment you send it, you create a digital artifact inside the institution:

• an email
• a routing entry
• a tracking log
• a timestamped obligation

That artifact cannot be undone.

Even if they respond with “no records exist,” the request itself becomes part of the record.

Silence is an artifact.
Delay is an artifact.
“No records” is an artifact.

You are not just asking for documents.
You are creating them.

Why delegation and third-party control matter

Many public officials don’t personally manage their communications.

Staff do.
Consultants do.
Sometimes private individuals do.

From a systems perspective, that creates a simple fork:

• If there are records authorizing that role → delegated authority
• If there are no records, but the practice occurred → custom or usage
• If nothing is documented at all → informal governance under color of office

None of those outcomes help the institution dodge accountability.

Public power doesn’t disappear because it’s exercised through someone else.
It becomes traceable.

A PRR doesn’t accuse.
It forces the system to say whether governance existed at all.

Why PRRs come before discovery

Discovery asks for answers.
PRRs expose process.

Discovery is about facts in dispute.
PRRs are about whether there was a documented process to begin with.

If you skip PRRs and jump straight to discovery, you give up:

• timing leverage
• record-creation leverage
• and admissions made outside litigation

That’s how people end up arguing about intent instead of structure.

The takeaway

Public records law is not a weaker form of discovery.

It’s a different tool with a different purpose.

Discovery litigates disputes.
PRRs stress-test institutions.

One asks questions.
The other forces systems to describe themselves — in documents, or by their absence.

That’s not activism.
That’s systems analysis.

That’s REVOLT Training.