# T026 — Rogers Record-Creation Objection Versus What Was Produced The record-creation objection is the most consequential move a custodian can make against a platform-era records request, because it converts an export into a compilation and a compilation into something the statute does not require. Rogers made it, then produced the exports anyway. ## Statement A City Attorney [[John Pesek]], 2026-07-22 at 11:23 CDT: > "The City is in receipt of your request. You use many terms we are not familiar with and your request is quite long and seemingly asking the City to create many records that do not exist and will…" (message `19f8aa3d0b34cf45`) ## Statement B On 2026-07-24, [[Missi Craig]] produced twenty-one documents. Among them, as existing records requiring no creation: - **`SharedNetworks_2026_July_10.csv`** — a native platform export listing **2,408 organizations**, generated fourteen days before production ([[Rogers SharedNetworks 2026-07-10 Export]]). - **`The Meraki Camera Inventory.xlsx`** — a native inventory of **263 cameras** with site, position, MAC address, serial number, model, and firmware ([[Rogers Meraki Camera Inventory]]). - **Seven governance documents**, including policies on the Public Safety Camera Network, ALPR, artificial intelligence, and the Real Time Information Center ([[Rogers RTIC AI and Camera Policies]]). - The Flock order form and invoice, the Axon master agreement, and three ARDOT permit items. ## Why it matters The two positions are not formally contradictory. An objection raised on day one does not bind the agency on day three, and the City is entitled to reconsider. The tension is evidentiary rather than logical, and it is about **what the objection tells us regardless of how it was resolved**. If a request for "the devices and locations export" and "the network sharing export" reads to a City Attorney as asking the City to create records that do not exist, the objection reflects an understanding of the platform rather than of the statute: the exports exist as a button in a vendor interface, and the vendor generates them on demand. Rogers's own production settles the factual question in this instance — the exports existed and were produced within 48 hours. That matters beyond Rogers because the same objection is available to every custodian in the corpus holding the same platform, and in several it has not been tested. Bentonville's produced internal deliberation reasoned along the same line about sharing configuration ([[T022 - Bentonville Click-to-Allow Sharing Statement vs Produced Sharing Records]]); Rogers supplies the counter-example in which the objection was made and the records appeared anyway. ## Resolution status open — the objection was never withdrawn in writing, and the production did not address it. Both remain in the record. Two categories are still outstanding and keep the question live: the **communications portion**, for which Pesek requested an extension to **2026-07-29**, and the **Flock devices-and-locations export with coordinates**, which was answered instead with a Google Earth screenshot carrying no location data ([[Rogers LPR Locations Map]]). Whether the native location export is treated as an existing record or as a creation request has not yet been tested at Rogers. ## Discovery Surfaced 2026-07-24 during ingest of the first Rogers production. ## Notes The Department's conduct throughout was cooperative in a way the objection does not suggest: Craig invited the requester to identify gaps, and Pesek named a specific extension date rather than letting the category lapse. The tension is recorded about the framing, not as a criticism of the handling.