2021 Ohio 3824
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellant Michael Isreal requested public records on December 28, 2018 about elevator No. 8 (malfunctions, fire-department calls, maintenance responses and records) after an elevator entrapment incident in July 2018.
- Appellees (Franklin County Commissioners and officials) provided 17 pages responsive to the request on February 8, 2019, and two additional pages during mediation.
- Isreal filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging an unreasonable delay in production; the Court of Claims assigned a special master and referred the matter to mediation.
- The special master found production was timely for all but two pages, the two-page delay resulted from an ambiguous request (Request No. 4), and any delay was de minimis; recommended dismissal as moot and denial of costs to Isreal.
- The Court of Claims adopted the R&R, overruled appellant’s objections, assessed costs against appellant, and Isreal appealed pro se.
- The Tenth District affirmed: records were produced within a reasonable period; the two-page delay was de minimis and attributable to an ambiguous request; the court declined appellant’s ancillary motion and refused to issue advisory opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under R.C. 149.43(B) ("reasonable period of time") | Isreal: production was unreasonably delayed; follow-ups were needed. | County: 17 pages provided Feb 8, 2019; remainder (2 pages) provided during mediation; production within 30 business days. | Court: Production was within a reasonable period given the facts; claim moot; dismissal affirmed. |
| Scope/ambiguity of Request No. 4 (elevator 8 v. all elevators) | Isreal: all requested records were not timely produced. | County: request wording was ambiguous; records initially interpreted as limited to elevator 8; two-page supplement provided once clarified. | Court: Ambiguity caused the two-page delay; delay was de minimis and did not violate R.C. 149.43(B). |
| Requests for information v. identifiable "public records" | Isreal: sought records and enforcement under R.C. 2743.75. | County: four of five requests were requests for information (not specifically identified records) and thus not enforceable as records requests. | Court: Found four requests were informational rather than for specifically identified records. |
| Appellate procedural defects (assignments of error; pro se practice) | Isreal: advanced arguments on appeal without formal assignments of error. | County: procedural default; App.R. 16 requires assignments of error for appellate review. | Court: Noted appellant’s brief lacked assignments of error; appellate review limited; judgment affirmed. |
| Motion to reconsider/prior litigation & advisory questions | Isreal: asked court to reconsider earlier rulings and decide additional issues. | County: issues were either previously decided or would require advisory opinions. | Court: Declined to reconsider prior decision and refused to issue advisory opinions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394 (Ohio 2019) (reasonableness of production delay depends on all facts and circumstances).
- State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600 (Ohio 2009) (factors for reasonable period analysis).
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 2005) (requester bears burden to show unreasonable delay).
- State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland, 149 Ohio St.3d 612 (Ohio 2016) (timeliness standard under R.C. 149.43).
- State ex rel. White v. Koch, 96 Ohio St.3d 395 (Ohio 2002) (Ohio courts will not render advisory opinions).