Oklahoma Bar Journal
Government & Administrative Law Practice
Efficiency and the Open Records Act
By Christian Rinehart
The Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA) has the paramount goal of ensuring that all political power is inherent in the people. In fact, the purpose of the ORA states that “it is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government.”[1] This sentiment can be boiled down to one word: transparency. The American revolutionary Patrick Henry stated the importance of transparency as follows: “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”[2] Oklahoma, like other states and the federal government, recognizes that transparency in government is important, and the ORA is designed to ensure the public can be informed about governmental operations while allowing public bodies to adopt reasonable procedures that protect record integrity and prevent excessive disruption of essential functions.[3] While transparency in government is undoubtedly important in Oklahoma, recent statutory changes and case law developments continue to shape how the ORA is administered in a manner that seeks to balance transparency with the efficient use of public resources and taxpayer dollars.
RECORDS SUBJECT TO THE OPEN RECORDS ACT
The most important place to start with an open records issue is whether the requested material qualifies as a record under the ORA. “Record” specifically does not include computer software or nongovernment personal effects.[4] It includes “all documents including, but not limited to, any book, paper, photograph, microfilm, data files created by or used with computer software, computer tape, disk, record, sound recording, film recording, video record or other material regardless of physical form or characteristic.”[5] To generally qualify as a record under the definition, the record must also be “created by, received by, under the authority of, or coming into the custody, control or possession of public officials, public bodies or their representatives in connection with the transaction of public business, the expenditure of public funds or the administering of public property.”[6]
In late 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether “metadata” qualifies as an open record under the definition of record in 51 O.S. §24A.3 in the case of Brooke v. Reed.[7] In that case, the requestor, Mr. Brooke, requested the records from the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) on COVID-19 correspondence between OSDH and the governor’s office.[8] OSDH provided 11,000 files in PDF format in response to the ORA request, and Mr. Brooke argued that the PDF format did not include embedded metadata to make the documents searchable.[9] Mr. Brooke contended that the documents should have been provided in the native Microsoft Outlook format with metadata included.[10] For instance, the PDF copies of the emails produced contained the contents of the message but did not have the metadata with the technical details about the message such as the information about the sender, recipient, and the date the message was sent.[11] OSDH asserted that providing records in PDF format was a reasonable procedure to protect the integrity of the records, as native-format files could be manipulated and thereby compromise integrity.[12] The Supreme Court agreed with ODSH and stated: “Importantly, the statute also authorizes the public body to establish reasonable procedures which protect the integrity and organization of its records and to prevent excessive disruptions of its essential functions.”[13] In conclusion, the court held that the plain meaning of “data files” under the ORA does not include metadata and that the ORA does not mandate records to be produced in any specific format, unlike the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[14]
As Brooke vs. Reed illustrates, the definition of record under the ORA is an important aspect to determinewhat records should be provided and how they should be provided to achieve the goals of transparency and efficiency.
EXEMPTIONS TO THE ORA
The ORA divides records into three categories of openness: open records, records required by law to be kept confidential and not disclosed, and records that may be redacted or kept confidential by the public body.[15] As a general default rule, when an open records request is made, the record should be made available pursuant to the ORA unless an exemption applies.[16] Public bodies also have incentive to be more transparent and efficient by putting open records online to avoid large numbers of requests for the same documents. Any public body which makes the requested records available on the internet meets the obligation of providing prompt, reasonable access under the ORA.[17] If a request is denied by a public body, the burden is on the government entity denying the request to establish why an exemption applies.[18]
The ORA does not apply to records “specifically required by law to be kept confidential,” including records protected by state evidentiary privileges such as attorney-client privilege, work product immunity from discovery, and identity-of-informer privileges.[19] Some other commonly used exemptions specifically required by law to be kept confidential for public bodies that provide utility services are personal email addresses, credit information, credit card numbers, telephone numbers, social security numbers, bank account information for individual customers, and any portion of any record that contains the name or any other identifier of the occupants of any residential structure.[20]
As an example of records that may be withheld in whole or released with redactions, a public body may treat certain personnel-related materials as confidential, including records generated in connection with internal personnel investigations and information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.[21] However, the discretion is not unlimited and must be balanced against the purpose of the ORA as the relevant case law explains.[22]
Police and law enforcement records must be analyzed under the act’s separate law enforcement provisions and framework. “Law enforcement agency” is specifically defined by statute.[23] Certain police records may be withheld under specific exemptions provided in the ORA. For example, law enforcement agencies may deny access to records if disclosure would interfere with an investigation, endanger individuals, or violate confidentiality provisions. [24]
NEW DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT AND FEES
A public body expends valuable time and resources searching for requested documents under the ORA, and a deposit requirement for large requests helps ensure that time spent searching and responding is not wasted. Public bodies have, in the past, dealt with large, open-ended requests involving thousands of pages of responsive documents that are compiled but never picked up. When a requester does not pick up or review the records, staff time and taxpayer dollars are misused. The purpose of the ORA is also frustrated when the records are not reviewed, because no one is exercising the inherent right to be “fully informed about their government.”[25]
The new deposit requirement under Senate Bill 535, effective in 2025, provides that “a public body may require advance payment of the estimated fees authorized under this section when the estimated cost exceeds Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) or if the requestor has outstanding fees from previous requests. Any portion of an advance payment that exceeds the costs of responding to the request shall be returned to the requestor.”[26]
A public body can charge a fee for recovery of the reasonable direct costs of record copying or mechanical reproduction.[27] The record copying fee cannot exceed 25 cents per page or $1 per copied page for a certified copy, unless another state law prescribes a different cost for particular individual records.[28] Therefore, the $75 deposit implemented by a public body could be triggered if the page count is over 300 pages.
In addition to copy fees, a public body can charge a search fee for the reasonable direct cost of record search and copying if the request is solely for a commercial purpose, or if fulfilling the request would clearly cause excessive disruption of the essential functions of the public body.[29] However, the ORA provides that no search fee shall be charged when release of records is in the public interest, including release to the news media, scholars, authors, and taxpayers seeking to determine whether public servants are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties.[30] It is important to note the written fee schedule must be posted at the principal office of the public body and with the county clerk.[31] An example fee schedule is found on the attorney general’s website.
PROCESS FOR OVERLY BROAD REQUESTS AND METHOD FOR RESPONDING TO REQUESTS
Another change to the ORA to address the rising efficiency issues is a new process to narrow down overly broad requests.[32] It can be frustrating for both the requestor and the government entity if the original request was improperly labeled or unclear. For instance, imagine going to a restaurant and not receiving a menu; you may end up ordering something other than what you actually wanted. However, if you ask the waiter to see a menu or if you ask politely about what the restaurant has, the experience is more efficient and avoids delays and communication misunderstandings.
Following this logic, the ORA now has a built-in back-and-forth communication for the requestor and the government entity under number 7 of 51 O.S. §24A.5. This new language under SB 535 passed in 2025 now clarifies in statute that a public body may require a requestor to complete a records request form. Under the new language:
“If a records request does not describe the requested records with reasonable specificity, a public body may ask the requestor to clarify the request. To have reasonable specificity, a request shall:
- specify a general time frame within which the requested records would have been created or transmitted,
- seek identifiable records, rather than general information without any qualifiers or other specifications, and
- include search terms that are sufficiently specific to assist the public body in identifying the requested records.”[33]
The language next describes what happens if the requestor is not being specific and provides an avenue for denying a request that is not reasonably specific:
“If a public body has engaged with the requestor to seek the information needed to fulfill the request and to identify the records sought by the requestor, including providing the requestor with general topics or a specific list of records related to the request, the request may be denied if it is still not reasonably specific.” [34]
This language does not allow a governing body to deny a request that is not reasonably specific without attempting to help the requestor narrow the request by providing the requestor with at least general topics of records. This language helps with the efficient use of staff time and taxpayer dollars while ensuring a good faith effort is made to provide the records the requestor is seeking as the author of the bill explained on the Senate floor.
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NEW INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ORA AND CIVIL SUIT CHANGES
Another change to the Open Records Act that helps with efficiency is 51 O.S. 24A.40. Under this statute, any person whose request to inspect or copy a public record is denied by a public body may file a request for review with the public access counselor (PAC) in the Office of the Attorney General.[36] However, if a public body determined the request was for a commercial purpose after the records request was made, the PAC will only review whether a proper determination was made regarding treating the request as commercial.[37]
A public body also has the option to ask for an advisory opinion from the PAC by having the attorney or head of the governing body ask for the opinion.[38] Requesting an advisory opinion would make sense if the direction on the response the public body is planning to take with the request is not clear under the open records act and it is likely a request for review would be submitted by the requestor. A public body that relies in good faith on the advice of the attorney general in responding to the request is not liable for penalties under the act. [39]
For a request that is denied and submitted for review, the review process by the PAC only starts by the requestor submitting a request for review in writing on the complaint form found on the PAC website, along with a copy of the request for access to records and any response from the public body. [40] Next, the PAC determines if the alleged violation is unfounded. If it is not unfounded, the public body has seven days after notice by the PAC to respond.[41] The PAC then has 60 days to issue an advisement.[42] The public body shall take the steps necessary to comply with the ORA.[43] A public body that discloses records in accordance with the advice of the attorney general is immune from all liabilities and penalties under the ORA.[44] For questions about the process, the PAC can be reached by emailing opengov@oag.ok.gov.
Notably, if a requester elects to file a civil action rather than seek review by the Office of the Attorney General, 51 O.S. §24A.17(B), effective in 2024, requires the requester to provide written notice to the public body or public official and the attorney general of their intent to bring suit at least 10 business days before filing the action.[45] In practice, this helps with efficiency by allowing the public body to remedy the situation before the civil suit starts, which in turn avoids unnecessary strain on the court system and frivolous lawsuits.
CONCLUSION
Under Oklahoma law, the Open Records Act continues to advance government transparency while allowing public bodies to adopt reasonable procedures that protect record integrity and minimize disruption to essential functions. Recent statutory amendments and case law developments in Oklahoma have clarified expectations regarding request specificity, fees and deposits, and administrative review options through the Office of the Attorney General’s public access counselor. When Oklahoma public bodies and requestors communicate clearly and act in good faith, the act’s transparency goals can be achieved without unnecessary expenditure of public resources.
More information and helpful summaries of the ORA can be found on the Attorney Generals’ website at oklahoma.gov/oag/news/open-records-request.html.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Christian Rinehart is general counsel for the Oklahoma Municipal League (OML), where he has worked since 2020. He supports OML’s legislative efforts, responds to legal inquiries from cities and towns, assists with amicus briefs, and provides training to municipal officials and attorneys. A native of El Reno, Oklahoma, Mr. Rinehart is a fourth-generation attorney and a second-generation attorney to practice in municipal law.
[1] 11 O.S. §24A.2.
[2] Patrick Henry, “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them,” BrainyQuote, https://bit.ly/4xiYHPp (last visited 6/8/26).
[3] 51 O.S. §24A.5 (6).
[4] 51 O.S. §24A. 3(1).
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Brooke v. Reed, 2025 OK 86, 581 P.3d 86.
[8] Id. at ¶ 2.
[9] Id. at ¶ 5. I strongly encourage readers to review the example of meta data vs the PDF picture in the case to fully understand what metadata means.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at ¶ 10.
[12] Id. at ¶ 4.
[13] Id. at ¶ 16.
[14] Id., Id. at ¶ 22.
[15] See 51 O.S. §24A. 5., 51 O.S. §24A. 7.
[16] See 51 O.S. §24A.5 stating “All records of public bodies and public officials shall be open to any person for inspection, copying, or mechanical reproduction during regular business hours; provided.”
[17] 51 O.S. §24A.5 (6).
[18] Lawson v. LeFlore Cty. Det. Ctr. Pub. Tr. Sec. Comm’n, 2025 OK 87, ¶ 11, 584 P.3d 1162, 1166-67.
[19] 51 O.S. §24A. 5.(1).
[20] 51 O.S. §24A.10 (D).
[21] 51 Okl. St. §24A.7, State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31 (2021).
[22] See, Ross v. City of Owasso, 2020 OK CIV APP 66 (2020), Okla. Pub. Emples. Ass’n v. State ex rel. Okla. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 2011 OK 68 (2011).
[23] 51 O.S. §24A. 3(5).
[24] 51 Okl. St. §24A.8, 51 Okl. St. §24A.20.
[25] See 11 O.S. §24A.2.
[26] 51 O.S. §24A. 5(4).
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] See 2025 OK S.B. 535.
[33] 51 O.S. §24A.5 (7).
[34] Id.
[35] See LegisOk, Senate Floor 3-10-2025 at 1:29 (YouTube, Mar 10, 2025) https://oksenate.gov/live-chamber.
[36] 51 O.S. 24A.40. (B).
[37] Id. at (C).
[38] Id. at (I).
[39] Id.
[40] Id. at (B).
[41] Id. at (B).
[42] Id. at (F).
[43] Id. at (G).
[44] Id.
[45] 51 O.S. §24A.17(B)111.
Originally published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal – OBJ 97 No. 8 (October 2026)
Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.