Alt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Probation Dept., 2017 Ohio 4250

Background

Requester Susan Alt filed an R.C. 2743.75 complaint alleging the Cuyahoga County Probation Department refused to produce public records requested under R.C. 149.43(B).
The purported records request was authored/sent by Jackie Mitchell via an online tracking service; Mitchell’s email asked recipients to "please direct this request to the Probation Department." Alt attached that email and other documents to her amended complaint.
The Court of Claims ordered Alt to clarify whether she sought an existing audit or a new audit; Alt did not identify an existing audit in her filings.
The Probation Department moved to dismiss for: lack of standing/that the request was not made to respondent, that the department is an arm of the common pleas court (so Sup.R. 44–47 may govern), that the request seeks creation of a new record, and that some records may be statutorily exempt.
The special master concluded (1) Alt had standing as Mitchell’s designee, but (2) Alt failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the request was actually made to the Probation Department, (3) the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over court records for cases commenced on/after July 1, 2009, and (4) the request sought a new audit (creation of a record) rather than an existing, reasonably identified public record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing when request made by colleague/designee	Alt contends Mitchell acted as her designee so Alt is an "allegedly aggrieved" person	Probation Dept. says Alt lacks standing because she did not personally make the request	Held: Alt qualifies as an "allegedly aggrieved" person via designee status (Quolke/Steckman principles)
Whether request was made to the Probation Department	Alt relies on Mitchell's emails and MuckRock submissions as the request	Probation Dept. asserts it never received the request; emails lack addressee/indication they were forwarded to respondent	Held: No clear and convincing evidence the request was made to the Probation Department; claim dismissed for failure to state a claim
Jurisdiction over court records (post-July 1, 2009)	Alt seeks audits/breakdowns tied to criminal cases from 2002–2010	Probation Dept. notes it is a department of the Court of Common Pleas and Sup.R. 44–47 govern court records for cases commenced after July 1, 2009	Held: Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over requests for court case records of actions commenced on/after July 1, 2009; those records must be sought under the Rules of Superintendence
Whether the request sought existing records or required creation of new records	Alt requested a "complete audit/breakdown" of funds from Task Force convictions	Probation Dept. argues the request asks the office to create a new audit (not identify an existing document)	Held: Request sought creation of a new record rather than an identifiable existing record; dismissal for failure to state a claim
Statutory exemption for probation/parole records	Alt did not focus on exemption; sought broader accounting	Probation Dept. noted R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(b) excludes records pertaining to probation/parole/community control	Held: Court declined to decide exemption issue because no existing responsive records were established (advisory decision avoided)

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (2013) (mandamus in public-records cases requires clear and convincing proof)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Quolke v. Strongsville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 142 Ohio St.3d 509 (2015) (requests may be made through a designee)
State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (1994) (designee/third-party request principles)
State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527 (2007) (prior request is prerequisite to public-records mandamus)
State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff, 132 Ohio St.3d 481 (2012) (Sup.R. 44–47 govern access to court records after July 1, 2009)
State ex rel. Vill. of Richfield v. Laria, 138 Ohio St.3d 168 (2014) (Rules of Superintendence are sole vehicle for court records post-2009)
State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168 (2011) (public-records act still governs case records commenced before July 1, 2009)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7 (2014) (distinguishing governance of records by date of case commencement)
State ex rel. Morgan v. City of New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33 (2006) (public offices need not create new records)
State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry, 85 Ohio St.3d 153 (1999) (no duty to create new records)
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (2012) (claimant must show responsive record exists)
State ex rel. Gooden v. Kagel, 138 Ohio St.3d 343 (2014) (same: burden to establish existence of the record)
State ex rel. Bardwell v. Ohio Atty. Gen., 181 Ohio App.3d 661 (2009) (R.C. 149.43 requires a prior request as prerequisite to enforcement)