2025 Ohio 1292
Ohio Ct. Cl.2025Background
- Shawn and Delta Hastings filed a complaint seeking public records from the Washington Court House Building/Zoning Department regarding zoning matters affecting them.
- The records sought included internal communications about the Hastings, drafts and final zoning reports, and the City's records retention policy.
- The City provided some records but did not produce certain notes or voicemails supposedly documenting the complaints prompting the zoning proceedings.
- The Special Master recommended judgment for the City, finding the Hastings did not provide clear and convincing evidence that additional records existed and that the City met its legal obligations.
- The Hastings objected, arguing that the late production of the retention schedule and conflicting statements showed more records should exist, and that privilege claims were improperly handled.
- The Court overruled the objections, adopted the Special Master's recommendation, and ordered costs assessed against the Hastings.
Issues
| Issue | Hastings' Argument | City's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether additional responsive records exist | City failed to produce all responsive records, including notes and voicemails; late production of retention policy shows more records exist | All responsive records were provided; no additional notes or voicemails exist | No clear and convincing evidence of additional records; court finds for City |
| Whether the records retention schedule matters for this complaint | Retention policy was only provided after complaint, indicating noncompliance | Retention schedule was not part of original complaint and was ultimately provided | Retention schedule not relevant as not sought in complaint |
| Whether the City’s claim of privilege was improperly asserted | City raised privilege ambiguously, implying it was withholding records without proving privilege | Hastings only requested unprivileged records, so privilege is not an issue | No privilege claim affecting outcome; no unproduced privileged records found |
| Whether the City’s evidence conflicted regarding existence of records | Conflicting statements by City on existence of notes/voicemails and privilege claims | Affidavit testimony confirmed that all records were provided; no conflicts with prior statements | No conflict found; Special Master’s analysis correct |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Steffen v. Kraft, 67 Ohio St.3d 439 (personal notes made for focus and not shared are not public records)
- State ex rel. Cranford v. Cleveland, 2004-Ohio-4884 (personal notes not records if not shared or kept with office records)
- State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177 (requester must provide evidence records exist when public office claims all have been produced)
- State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2012-Ohio-4246 (requester must provide clear and convincing evidence that records exist)