On July 1, 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court held that unrelated third party medical records are not discoverable in a private civil action, even if all personally identifiable information has been redacted. Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, No. 2009-Ohio-2973, slip op. at 2 (Ohio 2009). Plaintiffs filed an action against Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region and others alleging that Planned Parenthood illegally performed an abortion on the Plaintiffs' fourteen-year-old daughter. At issue before the Ohio Supreme Court was the Plaintiffs' attempt to discover from Planned Parenthood medical records of nonparty minors who had been patients at Planned Parenthood during a ten-year period. The court held that such records are not discoverable; the medical record privilege holds, even if all personally identifiable information has been redacted from the records. In so holding, the court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that Biddle v. Warren General Hospital, a case decided by the court in 2008, provides a right of discovery when the "disclosure is necessary to protect or further a countervailing interest that outweighs the patient's interest in confidentiality" (quoting Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp., 715 N.E.2d 518 (Ohio 2008)). The Biddle balancing test, the court held, applies only to determine liability of the releasing party when there already has been an unauthorized release of medical records, "i.e. the circumstances under which a physician or hospital may release confidential medical records in the absence of a waiver without incurring tort liability." In contrast to a number of prior Ohio appellate court cases, the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Roe means that, while the Biddle balancing test may be used after an unauthorized disclosure to limit liability for such disclosure, it may not be used to actually compel or authorize the disclosure. The Roe court went on to state that redaction of personally identifiable information from medical records does not defeat the records' privileged nature, reasoning "[r]edaction is merely a tool that a court may use to safeguard the personal, identifying information within confidential records that have become subject to disclosure either by waiver or by an exception."