Patton v. Solon City School Dist., 2017 Ohio 9415

Background

Requester David Patton sought copies of surveillance video from Solon City School District bus #36 covering Aug. 16–Oct. 21, 2016; District responded most footage had been disposed of and withheld remaining footage under FERPA and R.C. 3319.321.
Patton filed a public-records complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial and untimely production; District provided a sealed unredacted video and a redacted copy showing only Patton’s son.
The Special Master reviewed the unredacted video (shows multiple students in altercations; much of frame contains non-student images) and considered whether the entire recording is a public record and what portions may be withheld.
District argued portions not used for discipline were non-record or exempt from disclosure under FERPA and Ohio law; Patton sought a copy with only student faces blurred and complained about delay and questioning about his purpose.
The Special Master concluded the entire bus recording is a public record, that FERPA and R.C. 3319.321 permit redaction of identifiable student information (except for Patton’s son), and that the District failed to timely produce the copy.
Recommended relief: order District to produce the video with permissible redactions, award requester costs (including filing fee), and denied plaintiff’s claim that questioning about purpose violated the statute.

Issues

Issue	Patton's Argument	Solon SD's Argument	Held
Is the entire bus surveillance recording a public record?	The whole video is a record of District activity and subject to disclosure.	Only portions used for disciplinary decisions are "records;" incidental footage is non-record.	Entire retained recording qualifies as a public record.
May District withhold/redact student images under FERPA?	District should be able to blur faces; only identifiable student images are exempt.	FERPA bars disclosure of education records/PII; full-frame editing that leaves only involved students visible is insufficient.	Images of students involved in discipline (except requester’s son) are protected by FERPA and may be redacted.
Does Ohio R.C. 3319.321 independently prohibit disclosure of identifiable student information?	Patton: video can be released with redactions that avoid personally identifiable info.	R.C. 3319.321 bans release of personally identifiable info; identification may be possible from video and requester already knew student identities.	R.C. 3319.321 requires withholding personally identifiable information as defined by FERPA regs (including linkable identifiers).
Did Solon SD timely comply and may it ask requester’s purpose?	Patton: District failed to timely provide a copy and questioning purpose violated the statute.	District offered reasons for withholding and inquired about use; asking purpose is permissible conversation.	District violated timeliness requirement; asking purpose at a later meeting did not constitute a statutory violation.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Strothers v. Wertheim, 80 Ohio St.3d 155 (discusses the Public Records Act’s accountability purpose)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374 (Public Records Act construed liberally for disclosure)
State ex rel. WBNS TV, Inc. v. Dues, 101 Ohio St.3d 406 (records used to render decisions are subject to R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St.3d 160 (permissible redaction of personal administrative info within larger records)
State ex rel. ESPN, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 132 Ohio St.3d 212 (FERPA creates a statutory exception to public-records release)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433 (agency vehicle videos qualify as records; incidental footage must be released unless exempt)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
State ex rel. Mahajan v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 127 Ohio St.3d 497 (narrow construction of redactions; burden on custodian to justify redaction)