Oklahoma Open Records Act Does Not Require Production of Native Email Files or Embedded Metadata

1. Introduction

BROOKE v. REED (Okla. Nov. 25, 2025) addresses a recurring modern public-records dispute: when a requester seeks “digital copies” of government emails, must the agency produce the emails in their native format (e.g., Outlook PST) so that the requester receives embedded metadata (data about the data), or may the agency satisfy the Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.1–24A.40, by producing reasonably accessible copies (here, machine-readable PDFs)?

Plaintiff/Appellant Nicholles Brooke requested COVID-19-related correspondence between the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) and the Governor’s office for a defined time period and using specified search terms. Defendant/Appellee Keith Reed, in his official capacity as OSDH Commissioner, defended OSDH’s production choices.

The key legal issue was narrow but consequential: whether the ORA’s definition of “record,” including “data files created by or used with computer software,” requires production of the native electronic files containing embedded metadata.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the ORA does not require a public body to provide email records in their native file format merely because the native format contains embedded metadata. It vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion (which had required native-file production if the agency had the capability) and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for OSDH.

The Court concluded that producing emails as PDFs provided “prompt, reasonable access” to the requested “correspondence,” and that the ORA does not impose a format-of-production mandate comparable to the federal FOIA.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, 85 P.3d 841: cited for the de novo standard of review and the appellate court’s nondeferential authority over questions of law, framing the metadata/format issue as statutory construction reviewed independently.
Rickard v. Coulimore, 2022 OK 9, 505 P.3d 920: supplied the Court’s interpretive starting point—legislative intent is derived first from the statutory text, applying plain meaning when unambiguous.
Childers v. Arrowood, 2023 OK 74, 541 P.3d 825: cited for the definition of ambiguity (susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation), used to reject the claim that “data files” is ambiguous in a way that would authorize judicial expansion to metadata.
Thurston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 105, 478 P.3d 415 (quoting Heath v. Guardian Interlock Network, Inc., 2016 OK 18, 369 P.3d 374): used to emphasize the presumption that the Legislature “expressed its intent and intended what it expressed,” reinforcing a text-centric approach and limiting judicial supplementation for technological change.
Wagner v. Sheriff of Custer Cty., 2021 OK CIV APP 20, 492 P.3d 1240: relied on for the ORA’s structure—agencies must provide reasonable access but retain discretion over reasonable procedures, including how they respond to requests and in what format (so long as access remains reasonable and integrity is protected).
Out-of-state persuasive authorities acknowledged but not adopted:
- Roe v. Phillips Cty. Hosp., 522 P.3d 277 (Kan. 2023): described as holding copies must be in the format in which they are stored.
- O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2010): described as holding metadata associated with an email is a public record.
- Lake v. City of Phoenix, 218 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009): described as holding that when a public record is maintained electronically, the public is entitled to an electronic version including embedded metadata.
The Court treated these as illustrating a policy and statutory choice other jurisdictions have made, not as controlling interpretations of Oklahoma’s ORA text.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The interpretive lens: plain meaning controls. Applying Rickard v. Coulimore, the Court first looked to the ORA’s definition of “record,” which includes “data files created by or used with computer software.” It found the language “not ambiguous” under Childers v. Arrowood, and therefore declined to use broader interpretive tools that could incorporate metadata by implication.
“Data files” does not naturally include “data about data.” The Court drew a sharp distinction between (a) the content of the email message (the “correspondence” requested) and (b) the richer technical transmission information found in an Outlook “internet header” within a PST. It held that the “ordinary, everyday meaning” of “data files” does not encompass embedded metadata as a required deliverable.
No ORA format-of-production mandate. The Court emphasized that, unlike FOIA’s express requirement—“an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested ... if ... readily reproducible,” 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(a)(3)(B)—the ORA contains no parallel command. Instead, the ORA requires that records be made available for inspection/copying/mechanical reproduction and that the agency provide “prompt, reasonable access,” while also permitting “reasonable procedures” to protect integrity, organization, and prevent disruption.
Reasonableness and integrity justified PDFs. The agency argued (and the Court accepted) that PDFs are a reasonable method to protect record integrity and preserve redactions, whereas native files may be manipulated and can complicate ensuring redactions remain effective. Under ORA’s “reasonable procedures” allowance, PDF production was treated as compliant.
Policy questions are for the Legislature. The Court underscored that deciding whether modern transparency requires native-file production, metadata access, and format mandates is a legislative policy question—especially because “metadata can mean many things,” and because defining metadata and safeguarding sensitive information embedded in it would require line-drawing beyond judicial statutory interpretation. The opinion explicitly invited legislative study and definition (noting other jurisdictions have legislated on metadata).
Procedural holding: summary judgment after evidentiary hearings. Although evidence was taken during May and August 2021 hearings, the Court treated the case as ultimately turning on a pure legal issue with no disputed material facts. It held the district court did not err in entertaining and granting summary judgment later, and noted that even if the hearing were considered a bench trial, the motions could be recast as a directed-verdict equivalent.

3.3 Impact

Establishes a clear “no native-file entitlement” baseline under Oklahoma ORA. Requesters cannot compel PST/native email production solely to obtain metadata; agencies may satisfy the ORA through reasonably accessible copies (e.g., PDFs) that convey the substance of the correspondence.
Strengthens agency discretion over production procedures. By anchoring the holding in ORA’s “reasonable procedures” and “integrity” language, the decision encourages agencies to standardize secure workflows (including PDF export/redaction) without fear that “capability to produce native files” creates a duty to do so.
Limits persuasive pull of metadata-friendly out-of-state decisions. While the Court acknowledged that other states treat metadata as a public record, it effectively signaled that Oklahoma will not import those rules absent statutory amendment.
Legislative invitation. The opinion reads as an explicit prompt for Oklahoma lawmakers to address electronic-record format, metadata definitions, and redaction security standards, if broader digital transparency is desired.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Metadata: Information about an electronic record that is not the main “content.” For email, it can include technical routing details, server hops, thread identifiers, and device/software identifiers. The Court treated this as distinct from the readable message text.
Native file format (PST): The original format used by the software that created or stores the record. For Microsoft Outlook, a PST can store emails and associated technical header information and is typically viewed/imported through Outlook.
Machine-readable PDF: A PDF that can be searched/processed by a computer (not merely a scanned image). The Court treated this as providing reasonable access to the substance of email correspondence.
Plain meaning / unambiguous statute: When statutory words have a clear ordinary meaning, courts apply that meaning rather than expanding coverage based on modern policy concerns. Here, the Court held “data files” plainly does not compel production of embedded metadata.
Summary judgment despite evidentiary hearings: Even if testimony is taken, summary judgment may still be appropriate if the facts are not materially disputed and the remaining question is purely legal.

5. Conclusion

BROOKE v. REED establishes that the Oklahoma ORA requires reasonable access to public records, not delivery in the requester’s preferred electronic format. “Data files” in the ORA do not, by plain meaning, obligate agencies to provide embedded metadata contained in native email storage files. The decision consolidates agency discretion to use reasonable procedures (such as PDF production) to protect record integrity and manage disruptions, and it squarely places any expansion of metadata access or format-of-production rights in the hands of the Oklahoma Legislature.