2025 Ohio 2375
Ohio Ct. Cl.2025Background
- Jakimah Dye was discharged from employment with the City of Cleveland and challenged her termination, submitting six public records requests related to her case.
- The City initially produced several records, some redacted, before Dye pursued litigation in the Ohio Court of Claims to compel additional production.
- Dye alleged the City unreasonably delayed producing responsive records and sought damages under Ohio's public records statute.
- The case was handled under Ohio R.C. 2743.75's streamlined procedure for public records disputes, with mediation bypassed due to lengthy delays.
- The Special Master reviewed the sufficiency and timeliness of the City’s responses, the assertion of privileges, and procedural objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unreleased Records (Production Claims) | Cleveland did not release all responsive records to multiple requests | All responsive records were produced and no further records exist | Production claims for many requests moot unless evidence shows more records exist |
| Delay in Production | Cleveland unreasonably delayed responding to public records requests | Delays (if any) were reasonable given the nature and volume of the requests | City of Cleveland unreasonably delayed its response to several requests |
| Privilege/Redactions | Cleveland improperly withheld/redacted records under attorney-client privilege | Privilege was properly asserted where applicable; most withheld items protected by law | Some redactions/withholdings based on attorney-client privilege were improper—ordered disclosed |
| Costs & Fees | Dye entitled to recover filing fees/costs due to City's conduct | No fees/costs due, as records were ultimately provided and proper procedures followed | Dye awarded filing fee and costs; City to bear balance of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St. 3d 126 (provision of requested public records during suit generally moots production claims)
- State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St. 3d 168 (production of records during litigation may moot claims, unless clear evidence shows more exist)
- Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St. 3d 337 (public record claimants not required to be skilled pleadings; courts should not reject meritorious claims for procedural missteps)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St. 3d 600 (reasonable period for production of public records is case specific)
- Westfield Ins. Group v. Silco Fire & Sec., 2019-Ohio-2697 (burden of proving attorney-client privilege is on the party claiming it)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine, 135 Ohio St. 3d 191 (no requirement for public offices to provide privilege logs under Public Records Act)