522 P.3d 277
Kan.2023Background
- Kelly Roe requested copies of public electronic records from Phillips County Hospital in their native electronic formats (including Excel files with formulas and potential metadata).
- Hospital refused to provide electronic/native copies and offered only paper copies.
- The Kansas Attorney General's Open Government Enforcement Unit advised KORA contains no requirement to provide records in native format and left format discretion to agencies.
- Roe sued to enforce KORA; the district court granted partial summary judgment ordering Hospital to produce electronic copies.
- A Court of Appeals panel reversed, holding KORA does not plainly require agencies to provide electronic native-format copies and that paper reproductions can satisfy the statute.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review on the narrow issue whether KORA requires agencies to provide electronic copies of electronic records and, finding the statute’s plain language requires format fidelity, affirmed the district court and reversed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KORA requires a public agency to provide an electronic record in the electronic format in which it is maintained when requested | Roe: "Copy" must mirror the stored record; form is part of the public record, so agencies must provide native electronic copies | Hospital: KORA is silent on format; agency retains discretion to choose production format (paper acceptable) | Held: Yes. KORA requires agencies to provide copies in the format maintained when records are electronic and agency can produce them |
| Whether paper copies can faithfully reproduce embedded electronic components (formulas, metadata) | Roe: Paper cannot replicate embedded components; only electronic production preserves full record | Hospital: A paper reproduction that accurately transcribes information satisfies the copy requirement | Held: Paper may be insufficient. Embedded components are part of the record; accurate reproduction of an electronic record requires electronic format to preserve those components |
Key Cases Cited
- First Sec. Bank v. Buehne, 314 Kan. 507 (2021) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- N. Nat. Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Servs. Co., LLC, 310 Kan. 644 (2019) (de novo review principles)
- Wichita Eagle & Beacon Pub. Co. v. Simmons, 274 Kan. 194 (2002) (statutory interpretation and public-records principles)
- Bruce v. Kelly, 316 Kan. 218 (2022) (considering related statutory provisions in pari materia)
- State ex rel. Stephan v. Harder, 230 Kan. 573 (1982) (recognizing computer files as public records)
- State v. Wells, 296 Kan. 65 (2012) (when to consult canons of construction)