Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks (Slip Opinion)
145 Ohio St. 3d 408
Ohio2016Background
- Joseph Salemi (operator of a competing golf club) requested various records from Cleveland Metroparks relating to golf-course customers, e‑mail addresses, tee‑time bookings, marketing plans, third‑party contracts, and written directives protecting customer data. Metroparks refused, citing trade‑secret and attorney‑client privilege exemptions to the Public Records Act.
- Salemi filed a mandamus petition in the court of appeals to compel disclosure; Metroparks moved to dismiss and then for summary judgment. Procedural disputes arose over Salemi’s failure initially to caption the action “State ex rel.” and to verify the complaint, and over an attempted post‑filing amended complaint.
- Metroparks submitted affidavits from its chief marketing officer describing how it collects and protects a customer database, limits access to a few employees, uses the list for targeted marketing, and maintains written (confidential) directives issued by in‑house counsel.
- The court of appeals granted mandamus in part and denied it in part: it found customer names/e‑mail addresses and the marketing plan to be trade secrets (not disclosable), declined to find various contracts exempt as submitted, and concluded the written directives were protected by attorney‑client privilege.
- Salemi appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and also moved there for an order to show cause to hold Metroparks and counsel in contempt for alleged false affidavits and noncompliance; the Supreme Court considered the merits and denied the contempt motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to caption mandamus petition in name of state and to verify complaint under R.C. 2731.04 is jurisdictional | Salemi implicitly: procedural defects should not bar relief; he later sought leave to correct | Metroparks: R.C. 2731.04 requires captioning and verification and supports dismissal | Court: Requirements are not jurisdictional but are waivable; court considered merits despite defects and noted leave to amend should be freely given (Salemi did not appeal denial of leave) |
| Whether Julien affidavits should be stricken for lack of personal knowledge or falsehood | Salemi: affidavits violate Civ.R.56(E), contain hearsay/false statements | Metroparks: Julien, as CMO, has personal knowledge; statements admissible or inferred; Salemi’s contrary evidence is hearsay or outside record | Court: Denied motion to strike; personal knowledge can be inferred from affiant’s role; Salemi’s counter‑affidavits relied on inadmissible hearsay or materials not in record |
| Whether customer list (names and e‑mail addresses) and marketing plan are trade secrets exempt from disclosure | Salemi: list lacks secret value; prior 2010 disclosure of >5,000 e‑mails; Metroparks allowed third‑party access; no industry‑standard precautions proof | Metroparks: list derives economic value, limited access, substantial effort and expense to compile and maintain, marketing yields revenue and reduced subsidies | Court: Held customer list and marketing plan are trade secrets under R.C.1333.61(D); applied Luken/Besser factors and found Metroparks met its burden, so records exempt |
| Whether court of appeals erred by not conducting in camera review of requested records (third‑party contracts and directives) | Salemi: in camera review could show waiver of secrecy or show directives are merely business procedures, not privileged legal advice | Metroparks: contents (names, e‑mails, marketing plan, directives) were undisputed; only legal status was at issue | Court: In camera review not required where contents are undisputed and only public‑records status is at issue; privilege and trade‑secret status decided without in camera inspection |
| Whether Metroparks and counsel should be held in contempt for false affidavits/noncompliance | Salemi: affidavits false; Metroparks failed to produce ordered records | Metroparks: affidavits supported; correspondence does not show refusal to comply | Court: Denied show‑cause/contempt motion — Salemi failed to demonstrate falsity or refusal to produce ordered records |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (mandamus is proper remedy to compel compliance with Ohio Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine, 135 Ohio St.3d 191 (2013) (personal knowledge for affidavits can be inferred from affiant’s position)
- State ex rel. Luken v. Corp. for Findlay Mkt. of Cincinnati, 135 Ohio St.3d 416 (2013) (trade‑secret analysis factors; industry‑standard precautions discussed)
- State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 89 Ohio St.3d 396 (2000) (trade secrets exempt from Public Records Act under statutory exception)
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 80 Ohio St.3d 513 (1997) (factors for trade‑secret/customer‑list analysis)
- State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio Envtl. Protection Agency, 88 Ohio St.3d 166 (2000) (customer lists must contain more than readily ascertainable names to be trade secrets)