2018 Ohio 3475
Ohio Ct. Cl.2018Background
- Sandhya Gupta submitted two public-records request letters to the City of Cleveland (July 19 and September 1, 2017) seeking voluminous records about waste-transfer operations and records for named employees.
- The City acknowledged receipt, said additional time was needed, and repeatedly told Gupta the requests were being processed.
- Gupta filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of access; the parties engaged in mediation.
- During mediation the City produced thousands of pages (4,371 pages delivered; ~20,000 pages made available for on-site inspection) and provided other records; some claims were accepted by Gupta as resolved.
- The Special Master found many requests either rendered moot by production, properly denied as ambiguous or overly broad, or sought non-existent records; he also found the City delayed unreasonably in providing some responsive records and delayed in giving statutorily required guidance on revising overbroad requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness from production | Gupta argued records were not timely/fully produced and some items still missing | City said production during mediation mooted many claims and that it produced all records it possessed | Claims concerning requests where records were produced or accepted in mediation were moot (several specific requests listed) |
| Ambiguous / overly broad requests | Gupta sought broad categories (e.g., "all communications," "any records regarding") and argued entitlement to wide disclosure | City argued many requests failed to reasonably identify records and could be denied per R.C. 149.43(B)(2) unless narrowed | Court upheld denials of numerous requests as ambiguous/overly broad and not enforceable without narrowing |
| Non-existent records / burden to show existence | Gupta contended certain records (e.g., pay stubs, voicemails, org charts) existed | City submitted affidavits that certain items did not exist and that it produced all records in its possession | Court accepted City affidavits; where City showed non-existence or full production, claims were dismissed/moot |
| Search of backups and employee personal devices | Gupta argued City should search backup servers and personal devices (deleted emails, private accounts) | City argued requester must prima facie show improper destruction or that official copies reside only on private devices before such searches are required | Court held Gupta failed to show improper disposal or that official copies were only on personal devices; no duty to search personal devices absent evidence |
| Promptness and duty to assist revising requests | Gupta argued City delayed and failed to provide timely guidance/rolling production | City contended it processed voluminous requests and engaged in mediation to narrow them | Court found City failed to provide some responsive records within a reasonable time and delayed required explanatory guidance for ambiguous requests, violating R.C.149.43(B) in that respect |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168 (2011) (production before judgment can render a public-records claim moot)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391 (2008) (Public Records Act construed liberally; discussion whether broad email requests are overly broad)
- State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Cmty. Coll., 133 Ohio St.3d 122 (2012) (requester must reasonably identify records; broad categories may be overbroad)
- State ex rel. Strothers v. Norton, 131 Ohio St.3d 359 (2012) (scope and timing for inspection; duties when records are presented for on-site inspection)
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 120 Ohio St.3d 372 (2008) (prima facie burden to show improper destruction of records to obtain deleted emails)
- State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland, 149 Ohio St.3d 612 (2016) (distinguishing public-records requests from civil discovery; office-wide searches often improper)