The Ohio Department of Health was within its rights to deny a COVID-19 vaccination researcher access to health data because her requests would require the department to create new records, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

A Supreme Court majority found the department could deny Kathryn Huwig’s request to collect information from two health department databases, one that contains information about deaths, and another with information about vaccine recipients. The Court noted the request would require the agency to comb through databases to select information she wanted.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court stated the Ohio Public Records Act does not require an agency to compile such information, and the health department could reject the request.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Daniel R. Hawkins joined the opinion.

In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy noted that the department admitted it could produce spreadsheets from the databases that Huwig requested. She maintained that fulfilling the request was no different than printing out a paper copy of any other electronic record and then redacting protected health information from the spreadsheets.

Justice Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion.

Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented without a written opinion.

Researcher Questions Department Death Statistics
Huwig analyzes health data as a private citizen and operates a Facebook group and podcast focusing on issues regarding COVID-19 data. In 2021, she testified twice before the State and Local Government Committee in the Ohio House of Representatives in regard to the state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the first hearing, she criticized the health department’s data. At her second appearance, she reported that the department had changed which data was publicly available online, which gave her less data to analyze.

In 2023, Huwig made a public records request for information from two health department databases.

One database contains information pertaining to the death of Ohioans. The “death information database” contains details separated into fields such as name, cause of death, and address. The department can use software to export information from the database into CSV (comma-separated values), which can be read by widely available software, such as Excel. The database can produce spreadsheets of death data back to 2007.

The other database compiles vaccination records. The vaccination database collects information for research and to provide data to doctors to coordinate patient care, and to patients seeking to learn of their own vaccination status. It can also export information by CSV to be read with programs like Excel. The department can also redact personal health information from the spreadsheets once they have been compiled.

Huwig requested a list of data fields in the two databases. She then used the data field terms to submit a public records request for spreadsheets from the databases that contained over 100 fields of information over a several-year period. The department responded that records do not exist to meet her request, and the department would not create them.

Huwig amended her request for the same information, but for just one year, 2021, with redactions of protected health information. She also asked for more information about how the department organizes the databases so she could fine-tune her records request.

The department told her the records were organized by person, but refused to provide any further information, stating such information involves “critical infrastructure,” and is protected against disclosure under R.C. 149.433(B)(1). The department also denied her request because it was overbroad, required the department to create new records, and could not be completed without revealing protected health information.

Huwig sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel the department to provide her with the records.

Supreme Court Analyzed Records Request
The per curiam opinion noted the Court did not need to address all three reasons for the health department’s denial of Huwig’s request because the issue could be resolved by determining if the response required the creation of a new record.

The Court explains the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, requires the custodian of public records to make records available to any person upon request, unless the records are subject to an exception. The department contends the databases are not public records and the information in them is not open for public inspection.

The opinion stated the Court did not need to address that issue because Huwig is not requesting copies of all the information in the databases, but rather spreadsheets containing certain information generated from the databases. The department maintained Huwig’s request required the department to extract and summarize death and vaccine data. The data summary Huwig requested does not exist as a record maintained by the department.

The department noted that it could produce spreadsheets from its databases with the information Huwig seeks and then redact protected health information from the files, but it is not required by the law do to so. The Court majority agreed.

“If a requested record does not already exist, the custodian of records need not search through another record to find information that the requester seeks and compile it into a new record,” the opinion stated.

The Court stated it had previously ruled that a digital record that exists at the time the request for the record is made needs to be produced only if the “computer were already programmed to produce the desired printout.” The health department argued it would have to reprogram its computer software to create the spreadsheets Huwig requested, and it was not obligated to do so.

The opinion stated the request made by Huwig of the department would be similar to asking a public office to go through its paper records, gather information in those records, and write it down in a notebook, and then compile the notebook information into a new record.

“Writing a new query to extract certain information from existing digital records is legally no different than asking a custodian to comb through an existing record and handwrite certain information into a new document,” the opinion stated.

The Court concluded that the department did not have a duty to produce the spreadsheets and denied her writ of mandamus request.

Records Request Should Have Been Granted, Chief Justice Maintains
Chief Justice Kennedy wrote that Huwig’s request to produce electronic spreadsheets that the department admits it can provide is no different than if she had asked for a printout of an electronic public record or a paper copy of a public record stored on microfiche.

She noted that the department’s death information database can be accessed online by the public to see “canned” reports, and the public can build custom reports from the database. The department can use a secure portal to download more datasets into a CSV file, including datasets for 2021, the year Huwig requested. Similarly, the department can develop CSV files from the vaccination database.

She wrote that the Court has previously ruled that records compiled in a single database are public records whose production can be compelled by a writ of mandamus. The death database is a public record used to carry out the department’s function of producing death certificates, and the vaccination database is a public record used to fulfill the department’s requirement to report information to the federal government, so both databases must be produced following a public-records request, the chief justice concluded.

Huwig did not request that the department create a new record, such as asking the department to merge the data from the death and vaccination databases, the opinion noted.

“Rather she simply requested that the data in those databases be exported and produced to her in a certain manner,” the opinion stated.

The department proved no exceptions that would allow it to deny Huwig the information, the chief justice wrote. She would compel the department to produce the records and award court costs, statutory damages, and attorney fees.

2023-0936. State ex rel. Huwig v. Dept. of Health, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4454.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.