Gannett GP Media, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety
2017 Ohio 4247
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- In late 2016 North Dakota requested assistance under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC); Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) deployed 37 troopers and a signed EMAC REQ‑A form memorialized the agreement.
- Gannett GP Media (Cincinnati Enquirer) requested: (1) names and ranks of the 37 troopers; (2) any and all OSHP communications regarding the deployment; (3) the EMAC/REQ‑A agreement documents; and (4) any OSHP bylaws/procedures governing EMAC agreements.
- DPS/OSHP refused or redacted records, citing R.C. 149.433 security‑record exceptions and a Fourteenth Amendment privacy interest in officers’ safety; DPS also denied Request No. 2 as overly broad/ambiguous and said no records existed for Request No. 4.
- GP Media filed a R.C. 2743.75 public‑records complaint; the special master reviewed withheld REQ‑A under seal and received supporting affidavits describing threats and “doxing” concerns during deployment.
- The special master applied Ohio public‑records law and constitutional privacy precedent, ruling Request No. 2 was overly broad and properly denied, Request No. 4 had no responsive records, but DPS improperly withheld trooper names and the REQ‑A in full after the deployment ended; limited redactions of security‑sensitive fields were appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Are all OSHP communications about deployment (Request No. 2) public? | GP Media: seeks all communications relating to deployment. | DPS: search would be unduly burdensome and DPS lacks email search capability; request is overly broad. | Denied — request was ambiguous/overly broad; DPS properly offered assistance to narrow and produced some records. |
| 2. Must DPS disclose the troopers’ names (Request No. 1)? | GP Media: names are public and necessary for accountability. | DPS: disclosure risks doxing/physical harm; Fourteenth Amendment privacy and R.C. 149.433 security exception justify withholding. | Granted — names must be released after deployment; withholding during deployment was justified but risk has receded. |
| 3. Must DPS produce the EMAC/REQ‑A form (Request No. 3) in full? | GP Media: REQ‑A is a public record; redactions only where law permits. | DPS: entire REQ‑A contains operational/tactical/security material and may be withheld in full under R.C. 149.433. | Granted in part — DPS must produce REQ‑A with limited redactions; only equipment lists and staging area (while deployment active) and discrete security items may be withheld. |
| 4. Are there OSHP bylaws/procedures governing EMAC (Request No. 4)? | GP Media: sought policies governing EMAC agreements. | DPS: none exist. | Denied — DPS showed no responsive records exist; no duty to create records. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kallstrom v. Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir.) (constitutional privacy for officers requires showing of perceived likely threat to safety)
- Keller v. Cox, 85 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (officer personnel records may be withheld when direct threats to officer/family exist)
- State ex rel. Quolke v. Strongsville City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 142 Ohio St.3d 509 (2015) (privacy/security exceptions may lapse after the risk that justified withholding subsides)
- State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born, 141 Ohio St.3d 422 (2014) (security‑record exception must be proven for each record; agencies cannot broadly label records to avoid disclosure)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, 70 Ohio St.3d 605 (1994) (statutory protection for Social Security numbers; limited privacy protections for certain personal data)
- State ex rel. Bodiker v. ???, 134 Ohio App.3d 415 (1999) (time/billing/administrative records are typically routine and not trial or security records)