Agencies Need Not Run New Database Queries: Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies “Creation of a New Record” Under the Public Records Act

Introduction

In State ex rel. Huwig v. Department of Health, 2025-Ohio-4454, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed whether the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) must execute new database queries and export selected fields into spreadsheets to satisfy a public-records request. Relator Kathryn Huwig sought detailed, line-level data about deaths and COVID-19 vaccinations from ODH’s databases, ultimately narrowing her request to 2021 with redactions of protected information. ODH refused, citing breadth, privacy, and the need to create a new record.

The Court, in a per curiam opinion joined by Justices Fischer, DeWine, Deters, and Hawkins, held that producing the requested spreadsheets would require the Department to create new records by writing and executing new queries and then redacting, which exceeds the agency’s obligations under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. The Court denied the writ and Huwig’s requests for statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees. Chief Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Shanahan, concurred in part and dissented in part; Justice Brunner also concurred in part and dissented in part, indicating she would grant the writ and award costs and partial fee relief.

Beyond its immediate dispute, the decision squarely addresses a modern transparency problem: when a requester seeks customized exports from a government database, is the agency legally obligated to run new queries to produce those tailored datasets? The Court’s answer—no—creates a clear boundary in the era of digitized public records.

Summary of the Opinion

• The Court granted Huwig’s motion to submit rebuttal evidence (two affidavits) as timely and responsive under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B).
• On the core question, the Court held that Huwig’s requests sought records that do not exist. To fulfill them, ODH would have to:
  • write new queries to extract specified fields from two databases,
  • save outputs as new files readable by spreadsheet software (e.g., CSV), and
  • redact protected health information.
  The Court equated this process to creating a new record, which the Public Records Act does not require.
• Because the Court resolved the case on “creation of a new record,” it did not reach ODH’s other grounds for denial (overbreadth and privacy exceptions).
• Relief was denied: no writ, statutory damages, costs, or attorney fees.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters, 45 Ohio St.3d 376 (1989). The Court relied on Scanlon’s core proposition that a digital record exists at the time of the request only if the computer is “already programmed to produce the desired printout.” If new programming (or, here, new queries) is required to extract and organize information, the agency would be creating a new record—something the Public Records Act does not demand. The majority acknowledged Scanlon’s later partial overrulings on different grounds, but its “already programmed” test remains the touchstone for this issue.
• State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 1998-Ohio-242. Kerner stands for the principle that a custodian is not obligated to search through records and compile requested information into a new record. The majority extended that analogy to the digital context: writing a new query to assemble a custom dataset is akin to combing through files and handwriting a new compilation.
• State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 2006-Ohio-6365. The Act requires responses to requests for existing records, not for “information.” The majority used this to underscore that Huwig’s request for specific data fields, extracted and arranged into new spreadsheets, was a request for information to be compiled, not for existing records.
• State ex rel. O’Shea & Assocs. Co., L.P.A. v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 2012-Ohio-115; State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell, 2023-Ohio-1323. Both reinforce the rule: reprogramming or running new processes to extract subsets of information creates new records; the Act does not impose that duty.
• State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-8447. The majority used Shaughnessy to illustrate the difference between “copying an existing electronic file” (analogous to photocopying) and creating a new one by compiling information (analogous to handwriting a new summary). Only the former is compelled.
• State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 2005-Ohio-4384; State ex rel. School Choice Ohio, Inc. v. Cincinnati Pub. School Dist., 2016-Ohio-5026. These cases supply the general framework: the relator must show a clear legal right to the record and a clear legal duty in the custodian to produce it; the custodian bears the burden to prove any exception to disclosure.

Majority’s Legal Reasoning

The majority’s reasoning turns on a careful distinction between two things:

• Requests for existing records (including existing digital files) that can be duplicated and, if necessary, redacted; and
• Requests that require the agency to use its systems to create new records by extracting, formatting, and compiling information into a new file not already in existence.

Applying that distinction, the Court concluded:

• Although ODH could technically run new queries and export CSVs with the fields Huwig specified, those exports do not yet exist as discrete records.
• Because “the database does not have the functionality to redact or obscure data fields for a particular dataset” on export, ODH would also need to use a spreadsheet program like Excel to perform redactions post-export. That further underscores that what Huwig requested is a new, tailored compilation rather than a duplication of an existing file.
• Huwig’s narrowing to 2021 did not change the analysis: the Department still would have to write new queries and create new files.
• Even though ODH maintains a 2021 death-data spreadsheet, that file includes fields Huwig did not want and lacks some she did. Producing the precise spreadsheet she asked for would still require creating a new record, not merely redacting an existing one.

On that basis, the Court held Huwig failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, a clear legal duty in ODH to produce the exact spreadsheets she demanded. Because the case was resolved on the “new record” ground, the Court expressly did not decide whether the request was overbroad or impermissibly included protected health information.

The Rebuttal-Evidence Ruling

The Court granted Huwig’s motion to submit rebuttal evidence under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B), emphasizing:

• Rebuttal evidence must be timely and responsive to new facts or arguments advanced by the opposing party.
• Affidavit evidence showing that a contractor previously obtained a 2019 mortality dataset from ODH directly contradicted ODH’s position that it did not create or release such line-level death data; this was proper rebuttal.
• Huwig’s additional affidavit and fee agreement properly rebutted ODH’s claim that she had not incurred, and would not incur, attorneys’ fees.

The Separate Opinions: A Different View of “Creation” and Redaction Duties

Chief Justice Kennedy (joined by Justice Shanahan) concurred in part and dissented in part, and Justice Brunner separately concurred in part and dissented in part. The dissents sharpen the fault lines in modern public-records disputes:

• Databases are public records. Relying on State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley (2008-Ohio-1770), the dissent underscored that agency-maintained databases documenting official functions are public records. ODH maintained the death database to carry out vital-statistics functions and used the vaccination database to satisfy federal reporting duties during the pandemic; therefore, both are public records.
• Exporting ≠ creating. The dissent argued that exporting a database to a CSV (and then redacting) is akin to printing a hard copy of an electronic record or copying microfiche to paper—ordinary forms of “duplication,” not creation. In the dissent’s view, Scanlon’s “already programmed” discussion was dicta and, even if not, distinguishable because Huwig was not asking ODH to merge or analytically recompute data but simply to output the databases.
• Overbreadth and the duty to assist. Under R.C. 149.43(B)(2), if an office claims a request is overbroad, it must explain how records are maintained to allow the requester to revise. The dissent concluded ODH failed to meet that duty; therefore its overbreadth defense should fail.
• Protected health information can be redacted. The dissent highlighted R.C. 3701.17(C): nonidentifying information in summary, statistical, or aggregate form is a public record and must be released. The mere possibility of reidentification via the internet cannot justify categorical denial; ODH had not shown it attempted to redact. Established doctrine (e.g., Beacon Journal v. Akron, 1994-Ohio-6; Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O’Shea Legal Group, 2016-Ohio-556) recognizes redaction as the remedy.
• Remedies. Because the dissent would order production, it would also award costs, $1,000 in statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2), and reasonable attorney fees subject to R.C. 149.43(C)(3) and (4).

Impact and Practical Implications

This decision matters well beyond public-health data. It sets a digital-age boundary for public offices and requesters:

• For public offices
  • You are not required to run new or custom queries to extract and compile fields into new files to satisfy a request.
  • You must provide existing records in the form they are maintained (subject to redactions), including existing digital files you already have and can copy.
  • Expect litigation to focus on what “already exists.” If you routinely generate specific exports (e.g., annual datasets), those may be discoverable as existing records.
  • While this opinion does not reach overbreadth and privacy exceptions, continue to honor the duty to help narrow overbroad requests by explaining how records are maintained (R.C. 149.43(B)(2)) and to redact protected information rather than withhold entire records where feasible.
• For requesters
  • Frame requests around existing records. Ask for “any existing annual CSV exports” or “the existing 2021 mortality CSV the Department maintains,” rather than specifying a customized selection of fields that would require a new query.
  • Request inventories, field lists, or descriptions of existing “canned” reports so you can identify existing files without asking the agency to compile a bespoke dataset.
  • Be prepared to accept more fields than you need (and rely on redaction where legally required), rather than asking the agency to engineer a new, narrower export.
• For courts and policymakers
  • This opinion modernizes and cements the “already programmed” standard in a database context, treating new queries as creation of new records.
  • Future disputes will likely hinge on whether a requested dataset already exists (e.g., standard exports for internal or federal reporting) and the line between redaction of existing files and creation of tailored outputs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Public record: Any document, item, or electronic record that documents a public office’s functions or activities, unless covered by a statutory exception.
• Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official or agency to perform a clear legal duty. In public-records cases, the requester must show a clear legal right to the record and a clear legal duty in the agency to provide it.
• Creation of a new record: Compiling information from existing records into a new file (for example, by writing and executing new database queries to deliver requested fields) rather than duplicating an existing file. Agencies are not required to create new records.
• CSV (comma-separated values): A plain-text file format commonly used for exporting tabular data from databases into spreadsheets.
• Protected Health Information (PHI): Identifiable health information protected by state law (e.g., R.C. 3701.17). Agencies must withhold or redact PHI, but nonidentifying data in statistical or aggregate form is a public record.
• Overbreadth: A request so unspecific or vast that it amounts to a demand for wholesale duplication of voluminous files. If an agency claims overbreadth, it must explain how records are maintained to allow the requester to revise (R.C. 149.43(B)(2)).
• Critical infrastructure record: Certain records about an agency’s infrastructure, the disclosure of which can be restricted (R.C. 149.433). The majority did not decide this issue in Huwig.
• Statutory damages and attorney fees: Monetary remedies under R.C. 149.43(C) when an agency fails to meet its obligations. Here, no relief was awarded because the Court found no violation.
• Clear and convincing evidence: The standard by which a relator must prove entitlement to mandamus relief—more than a preponderance, less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Unresolved Questions

• Are the death and vaccination databases themselves public records? The majority did not decide this point because it resolved the case on “creation of a new record.” The dissents would answer yes.
• When does an export “already exist”? If an agency regularly produces standard exports (e.g., for internal workflows or federal reporting), are those discoverable as existing files? Expect this to be a focal point in future cases.
• How far must agencies go in redacting existing files versus denying a request that calls for configuration or reconfiguration of database outputs? The majority’s line is clear for new queries, but future cases may test its application where an existing export is close to, but not precisely, what the requester seeks.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Huwig v. Department of Health clarifies a pivotal rule for the digital age: Ohio’s Public Records Act does not require agencies to create new records by running new database queries and exporting tailored spreadsheets of selected fields. The Court’s reliance on the “already programmed” standard draws a firm line between duplicating existing files (required) and generating custom outputs (not required). While the Court did not reach overbreadth or privacy exceptions, it reaffirmed that the Act compels access to existing records, not bespoke compilations of information.

The separate opinions highlight an opposing vision—one in which exporting databases to CSV is treated as routine duplication, not creation, coupled with a robust redaction duty and a requirement to assist requesters in narrowing overbroad demands. The 4–3 split underscores the evolving challenges courts face in applying paper-era doctrines to database-era transparency.

For now, the practical guidance is straightforward: requesters should aim for existing files, and agencies need not run new queries to manufacture customized datasets. The contours of what counts as an “existing” export—particularly when agencies routinely generate standard datasets—will likely define the next wave of Ohio public-records litigation.

Citation

State ex rel. Huwig v. Department of Health et al., Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4454 (Supreme Court of Ohio, decided Sept. 30, 2025).