2017 Ohio 4248
Ohio Ct. Cl.2017Background
- GP Media (The Cincinnati Enquirer) requested records from the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS)/Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) relating to the deployment of 37 troopers to North Dakota under EMAC: (1) the troopers’ names/ranks, (2) “any and all communications” by any OSHP employee about the deployment, (3) the EMAC agreement/REQ-A, and (4) OSHP bylaws/procedures governing EMAC agreements.
- Special Master Jeffery W. Clark recommended: deny relief as to Request No. 2 (ambiguous/overbroad) and Request No. 4 (no responsive records); grant relief as to Request No. 1 (trooper names) and grant in part as to Request No. 3 (produce EMAC agreement with permitted redactions).
- Both parties timely objected to the special master’s report. ODPS attached supplemental affidavits and exhibits with its objections; GP Media moved to strike those attachments.
- The Court granted GP Media’s motion to strike (finding that supplemental evidence not before the special master could not be added on review), reviewed the objections de novo as required by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), and adopted the special master’s report and recommendation.
- The court concluded ODPS properly denied Request No. 2 as ambiguous and met its duty to assist under R.C. 149.43(B)(2); no responsive bylaws/procedures existed for Request No. 4; trooper names and the EMAC agreement must be disclosed (with specified redactions) because the privacy and security exemptions did not continue after the troopers returned to Ohio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (GP Media) | Defendant's Argument (ODPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Request No. 2 (“any and all communications … by any employee”) reasonably identified records under R.C. 149.43(B) | Request was sufficiently specific and comparable to precedent (Carr) | Request was ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome; ODPS could not search emails using those terms | Denied: request is ambiguous/overbroad; special master correctly refused it |
| Whether ODPS satisfied R.C. 149.43(B)(2) duty to inform requester how records are maintained and accessed so GP Media could revise Request No. 2 | ODPS did not provide sufficient information about record maintenance or search capability | ODPS offered to assist, provided an example narrower production, and explained search limitations | Held: ODPS met its obligation to provide information/opportunity to revise |
| Whether troopers’ names remain exempt under Fourteenth Amendment privacy after return from deployment | Names should be public; privacy claim no longer valid after return | Continued privacy interest and safety risk justifies withholding names | Held: privacy exemption no longer applies after troopers returned; risk perceived during deployment has receded |
| Whether troopers’ names are exempt as security records under R.C. 149.433(A)(1) after return | Names are not security records now; disclosure favored where doubt exists | Names are security records because they directly relate to protecting public office/employees from attack | Held: not exempt as security records after return; ODPS offered no evidence of ongoing attacks or doxing |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Carr v. London Corr. Inst., 144 Ohio St.3d 211, 2015-Ohio-2363, 41 N.E.3d 1203 (clarifies degree of specificity required for public-records requests)
- State ex rel. Enquirer v. Craig, 132 Ohio St.3d 68, 2012-Ohio-1999, 969 N.E.2d 243 (police privacy interest; strict scrutiny when disclosure creates substantial risk of serious bodily harm)
- State ex rel. Plunderbund Media, L.L.C. v. Born, 141 Ohio St.3d 422, 2014-Ohio-3679, 25 N.E.3d 988 (interpreting scope of "public office" and security records under R.C. 149.433)
- State ex rel. Quolke v. Strongsville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 142 Ohio St.3d 509, 2015-Ohio-1083, 33 N.E.3d 30 (courts consider facts existing at time of decision)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 662 N.E.2d 334 (Public Records Act liberally construed; doubts resolved for disclosure)
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364, 2006-Ohio-1825, 848 N.E.2d 472 (reinforces policy favoring disclosure under R.C. 149.43)