2020 Ohio 4559
Ohio Ct. Cl.2020Background
- Requester Gerard Bello submitted identical public-records requests to the Toledo Correctional Institution (TOCI) and to ODRC central for Serious Misconduct Panel (SMP) disposition forms and the audio recordings of SMP proceedings (Jan 1, 2019–Jan 8, 2020).
- TOCI provided 144 lightly redacted SMP disposition pages and denied audio recordings as exempt inmate records under R.C. 5120.21(F); Bello then filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging unlawful denial.
- ODRC later produced corrected, properly aligned copies of the SMP disposition forms from its DOTS database and argued the production mooted the claim for the forms and that audio recordings were exempt.
- The Special Master denied ODRC’s motion to dismiss and proceeded to decide the merits: concluded the duplicate central-office production claim was moot, but found ODRC’s overall production untimely.
- The Special Master held the audio recordings were exempt as “records of inmates” under R.C. 5120.21(F), consistent with O.A.C. 5120-9-49(A)(3)(2) (which treats charges and decisions as public but not other disciplinary-record materials).
- Recommended: deny duplicative-production claim; find ODRC violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by untimely production (initially delayed ~35 days; complete production took >3 months); audio tapes properly withheld; assess court costs equally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requester is entitled to a second/duplicate set of SMP disposition forms from ODRC central | Bello contends he requested identical records from both TOCI and ODRC central and is entitled to both productions | ODRC says records are centrally maintained in DOTS and it already produced the disposition forms, so duplicate production is unnecessary/moot | Moot: duplicative request denied because DOTS is the single record source and requester offered no evidence of non-identical records |
| Whether audio recordings of SMP proceedings are public under the PRA | Bello sought audio recordings as public records | ODRC withheld audio as exempt "records of inmates" under R.C. 5120.21(F) and cites O.A.C. 5120‑9‑49 which releases charges/decisions but not other disciplinary materials | Held: audio tapes are exempt inmate records under R.C. 5120.21(F) as interpreted with O.A.C. 5120‑9‑49(A)(3)(2) |
| Whether ODRC violated the PRA by failing to provide records within a reasonable period | Bello argues ODRC unreasonably delayed (35 days to initial production; corrected copies only after filing) | ODRC offered no factual justification for delay or copying errors | Held: 35 days and >3 months until full corrected production exceeded a reasonable period; ODRC violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) |
| Whether claims based on R.C. 109.43(E) or records-retention policy are actionable here | Bello asserts violations of ODRC’s public-records policy/retention schedule | ODRC argues this court lacks jurisdiction over claims beyond R.C. 149.43(B) enforcement under R.C. 2743.75 | Held: Non-actionable in this forum; court has no jurisdiction under R.C. 2743.75 for alleged R.C. 109.43(E) or improper disposal claims; such claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 848 N.E.2d 472 (Ohio 2006) (PRA purpose: open government favors disclosure)
- State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 128 N.E.3d 179 (Ohio 2019) (PRA construed liberally; resolve doubts for disclosure)
- State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus, 89 N.E.3d 598 (Ohio 2016) (relator must prove entitlement to extraordinary relief by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Coroner’s Office, 101 N.E.3d 396 (Ohio 2017) (burden on public office to prove applicability of exceptions)
- State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018) (exceptions to disclosure strictly construed against custodian)
- State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 950 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2011) (production of requested records before decision can render claim moot)
- State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 976 N.E.2d 877 (Ohio 2012) (requester’s unsupported belief that additional responsive documents exist is insufficient)
- State ex rel. Laborers Int'l Union, Local Union No. 500 v. Summerville, 913 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2009) (requester not entitled to multiple responses to duplicate requests)