2020 Ohio 843
Ohio Ct. Cl.2020Background
- On January 25, 2019 Burfitt (an inmate) requested the ODRC records-retention schedule and the J-1 Post Orders; respondent Greene denied the request.
- Burfitt sued Greene under R.C. 2743.75 on July 1, 2019 alleging denial of access to public records; the court appointed a special master and referred the matter to mediation.
- The case was stayed pending State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene; the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed McDougald on September 25, 2019 without a merits opinion.
- The special master issued an R&R on January 29, 2020 recommending dismissal of some production claims, finding a statutory violation for delayed production of a redacted J-1 Post Orders, and awarding the filing fee and costs.
- The trial court found an error of law in the R&R’s reliance on McDougald (because that dismissal produced no binding merits opinion), rejected that portion of the R&R, but adopted the finding that Greene’s delayed production violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1); the court awarded Burfitt the $25 filing fee and other costs (but not attorney fees) and assessed costs against Greene.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ohio Supreme Court’s dismissal of McDougald binds this court (stare decisis/claim preclusion) | Burfitt: McDougald’s dismissal without a merits opinion does not preclude his claims | Greene: McDougald’s dismissal and related rulings require dismissal/operate preclusively | Court: McDougald produced no controlling merits opinion; R&R erred to treat it as binding; R&R rejected in part |
| Whether Greene’s delayed production of the J-1 Post Orders violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) (reasonable period) | Burfitt: Delay was unreasonable (redacted copy produced over six months after creation and three months after filing) | Greene: Provision of records moots claims; compliance undermines relief | Court: Adopted R&R—delay violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1); Burfitt entitled to filing fee and costs (no attorney fees) |
| Mootness and appropriate remedy for any violation | Burfitt: Relief still appropriate because of untimely response and redactions | Greene: Production rendered claim moot; move to dismiss | Court: Some production mooted parts of the claim (dismissal of production/less-redacted request), but awarded fees/costs for the statutory violation due to delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102 (Ohio 1971) (statutory construction: "shall" is construed as mandatory)
- State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394 (Ohio 2019) (analysis of what constitutes a "reasonable period of time" under R.C. 149.43(B)(1))