Little Turtle Civic Assn., Inc. v. Columbus, 2021 Ohio 4439

Little Turtle Civic Association (LTCA) made five public-records requests to the City of Columbus (May 14 and May 19, 2021) about communications regarding repaving/repair of Little Turtle Way.
The City produced numerous records; mediation narrowed the dispute to a single unresolved request (Exhibit 2 / Request No. 2).
Request No. 2 (as clarified by LTCA) sought all communications between named individuals (Mo Dioun, Mina Dioun, Adam Troutner, and Mayor Andrew Ginther) and city council members or their staffs from 2015 through 2021.
LTCA later produced Bates-numbered emails obtained in separate litigation purporting to show withheld records (three email strings); the City produced a set of responsive emails and attested no other responsive records existed.
The special master found later-created emails (post-request) are not responsive, and concluded LTCA failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that additional responsive records existed on the date of the request.
Recommendation: deny LTCA’s claim for production as moot (except resolved items) and assess costs equally.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether production by the City moots LTCA's claims	Some requested materials remain withheld	City produced responsive records, rendering most claims moot	Most claims moot; only Exhibit 2 required resolution
Scope of Request No. 2 after clarification	Request included emails between council and Mayor and named lobbyists; additional responsive records exist	Request limited to communications between named individuals and council; City produced all responsive records	Request construed as limited to named individuals; City met burden; no proof of other responsive records
Whether records created after the request are responsive	Subsequent emails show additional responsive materials	Only records existing on the date of the request fall within R.C. 149.43	Records created after the request are not responsive and cannot prove a record-existence violation
Burden to show existence of additional records	Bates documents from other litigation establish withheld records	City testimony denies additional responsive records; some produced documents are temporally non-responsive	LTCA failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that additional responsive records existed at time of request

State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 950 N.E.2d 952 (2011) (production prior to decision can render a public-records claim moot)
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (2018) (Public Records Act construed broadly in favor of disclosure)
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 170 N.E.3d 768 (2020) (requester bears initial burden to show an identifiable public record was sought and not provided)
Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 123 N.E.3d 928 (2018) (requester is entitled only to records existing on the date of the request)
State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 128 N.E.3d 179 (2019) (when respondent asserts no additional records exist, burden shifts to requester to show they do)
Morgan v. Strickland, 906 N.E.2d 1105 (2009) (courts encourage parties to negotiate and refine problematic public-record requests)
Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 97 N.E.3d 1153 (2017) (requester in enforcement action bears overall burden by clear and convincing evidence)