When an agency wants to restrict access to information, the records
                        custodian may say that manipulating database information is
                        "creating" a new record, which usually is not required by law.

Others argue that “creating” a specialized record is the very essence of why databases are set up. Their primary function is to permit users to manipulate data and information.

Sometimes customized searches are required only because the agency neglected to plan its database system in a way that users could access information.

When reporters at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wanted traffic ticket data from a local police agency, the police agency argued that because it had no way to separate cases, it was not required to disclose from other cases, they could not provide any of the information.

Often, statutes that regulate the practice do not require an agency to manipulate computer data for requesters, but neither do they prohibit an agency’s compliance with such requests.

Some statutes appear to require agencies to make reasonable efforts to provide such data. Virginia allows an agency to “abstract or summarize information,” but the agency is not required to do so.

In Minnesota, requesters can ask an agency to make a custom run of summary data, if the requester is willing to pay for it.

Idaho implies a limited right of access to “analysis, compilation and other manipulated forms of the original data produced by use of the program.” Oregon permits an agency to collect fees for “summarizing, compiling or tailoring” electronic records.

Computer-savvy reporters often will offer to write the program to save an agency the trouble. This may depend on which database management system the agency uses.

Courts have split on whether agencies must manipulate data for a requester. State courts sometimes look to federal law for guidance.

In 1982, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., held that “an agency is not required . . . to create a document that does not exist in order to satisfy a request.” (Yeager v. Drug Enforcement Administration)

A U.S. District Court in San Francisco (9th Cir.) ruled that an agency was not required to manipulate exempt information on personal tax returns to provide a breakdown of non-exempt information. The court ruled that the request involved “editing so extensive as to amount to the creation of new records.” (Long v. IRS )

However, more recent federal cases impose greater burdens on federal agencies to search for specific information. A federal district court in San Francisco ruled in 1989 that an agency must search all data banks to find specific information sought. (Mayock v. Immigration and Naturalization Service)

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., appears to have narrowed its earlier holding in Yeager when it found in 1994 that a publisher’s FOI Act request for specialized address lists from the Health Care Financing Administration was reasonable, even though it would require a search through the agency’s database.

However, the court ruled that the information, which was compiled from tax return information, was exempt from disclosure under the Revenue Code and the FOI Act’s Exemption 3. (Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. v. Health Care Financing Association)

In an administrative decision, the U.S. Department of Energy’s director of hearings and appeals decided that generating a list of documents by computer would not be creating a “new record,” even though the list did not previously exist.

The federal Electronic FOI Act was enacted to guarantee that requesters would enjoy the same benefits from electronic record-keeping enjoyed by the agencies themselves. It is consistent with later developments in case law, imposing the requirement of “reasonableness” in determining whether an agency has made an adequate search through its records for requested information.

Although many states look to federal law for guidance, it remains to be seen whether the “reasonableness” standard will carry the day.