2018 Ohio 3653
Ohio Ct. Cl.2018Background
- Requester Jason A. Anderson (through counsel Robert Smith III and later personally) sent voluminous public-records requests to Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) in January and March 2018 seeking law-enforcement/peace-officer records.
- RTA produced thousands of pages, including video/audio, and asserted some requests were overly broad or had no responsive records.
- Anderson filed an R.C. 2743.75 complaint alleging RTA failed to provide records within a reasonable time; the complaint was amended to identify 14 specific January 23 requests at issue.
- RTA submitted an affidavit (Jennifer B. Jackson) stating it had completed production responsive to Smith’s January 23 requests by February 26, 2018 (23 business days) and to Anderson’s March 29 requests by May 10, 2018 (29 business days).
- RTA justified its timeline by reference to retrieval from off-site archives, redaction and legal review for peace-officer personnel files, and the volume/complexity of overlapping requests; the Special Master rejected volume and officer-review practices as excuses for delay but considered retrieval/redaction/legal review as relevant.
- The Special Master found RTA’s timelines reasonable under the circumstances and recommended denying Anderson’s claim of untimely production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RTA failed to provide records responsive to the Jan. 23, 2018 requests within a reasonable period | Anderson contends RTA did not produce all responsive records timely (claimed delay past April 26) | RTA produced responsive records by Feb. 26, 2018 (23 business days); retrieval, redaction, and review justified time taken | Production for January requests was timely; 23 business days was reasonable |
| Whether RTA failed to provide records responsive to the Mar. 29, 2018 requests and whether complaint sufficiently identified those claims | Anderson alleged additional requests were untimely but did not specify individual March requests in the amended complaint | RTA provided March-request records by May 10, 2018 (29 business days); amended complaint failed to state with clarity specific March claims | March productions (if considered) were timely; amended complaint did not adequately plead specific March claims but conclusion stands that 29 business days was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364 (Ohio 2006) (policy favoring open government and liberal construction of public-records act)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391 (Ohio 2008) (doubt resolved in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Wadd v. Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 50 (Ohio 1998) (meaning of "promptly" depends on facts; volume of requests does not excuse delay)
- State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland, 149 Ohio St.3d 612 (Ohio 2016) (reasonable-period analysis; law-enforcement records may justify longer response times depending on facts)
- Strothers v. Norton, 131 Ohio St.3d 359 (Ohio 2012) (uncontroverted affidavits can establish compliance absent clear-and-convincing rebuttal)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Andrews, 48 Ohio St.2d 283 (Ohio 1976) (public office cannot use expense or workload to evade prompt disclosure)