N.S. v. M.S.
2024 Ohio 6020
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2024Background
- After a dispute and physical scuffle during a Lyft ride, N.S. (passenger) filed for a civil stalking protection order against M.S. (driver).
- A magistrate granted an ex parte protection order and scheduled a full hearing; N.S. later alleged M.S. violated this order by sending her a letter.
- Upon hearing, the magistrate denied N.S.'s petition for a protection order, determining she failed to prove a pattern of stalking conduct by M.S.; the record was ordered sealed as mandated by R.C. 2903.214(G)(2).
- N.S. did not appeal the denial or the sealing, but later moved to unseal the record to allow for prosecution on the alleged violation of the ex parte order.
- The trial court granted N.S.'s motion, unsealing the record for 30 days; M.S. appealed this decision, contending the trial court had no authority to unseal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (N.S.) | Defendant's Argument (M.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to unseal sealed records under R.C. 2903.214(G)(2) | Unsealing is necessary for prosecution of violation complaint. | Statute does not permit unsealing sealed protection order. | Court: Statute provides no authority to unseal; reversed. |
| Whether sealing/unsealing is a ministerial act | Sealing/unsealing is ministerial and justified by good cause. | Not ministerial; requires statutory authority. | Court: Ministerial only as mandated—no discretion to unseal. |
| Collateral estoppel re: motion to unseal after sealing not appealed | Implied by pursuing unsealing for prosecution purposes. | Should be barred as issue was already settled/no appeal. | Moot, given holding on lack of unsealing authority. |
| Denial of extension to respond to motion to unseal | N/A | Denial was prejudicial and unfair process. | Moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vanzandt, 143 Ohio St.3d 507 (Ohio 2015) (court lacks discretion to create new exceptions to sealed record statutes)
- Wilson v. Lawrence, 150 Ohio St.3d 368 (Ohio 2017) (the word "shall" in statutes is mandatory)
- Ohio Boys Town, Inc. v. Brown, 69 Ohio St.2d 1 (Ohio 1982) (definition of ministerial act distinct from exercise of judgment)