2024 Ohio 2185
Ohio Ct. Cl.2024Background
- Alex Schaffer operates a business using Ohio State University (OSU) Athletic Department data and frequently makes public records requests to OSU.
- Schaffer filed four cases claiming dissatisfaction with OSU's responses, mainly due to timeliness and OSU's practice of consolidating responses to his multiple requests.
- Three cases challenged how OSU consolidated and responded to multiple requests for ticket sales data; a fourth concerned OSU's failure to respond to another set of requests for policy and employee records.
- The cases were consolidated for review under R.C. 2743.75, the Ohio Public Records Act procedure before the Court of Claims.
- Special Master Todd Marti issued a report and recommendation addressing both procedural motions and merits, including whether OSU violated disclosure timeliness requirements and if redactions or failure to produce certain records were proper.
- The matter is at the procedural stage of a special master's report, with parties able to file objections before the report is final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidated responses to separate public records requests | Each request should have its own response; consolidation improper | Consolidation is efficient and did not deprive Schaffer of requested data | No aggrievement; consolidated responses provided all data requested; consolidation not a violation |
| Timeliness of responses | OSU's delay (sometimes >5 days) was unreasonable and unlawful | Processing many requests justifies some delay | Delay beyond 5 work days for some requests was unreasonable and violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) |
| Failure to produce certain data (e.g., Retail Resale, metadata) | OSU should produce additional data not initially included | Only required to produce data explicitly requested | No violation; those data types were not expressly requested in pre-suit requests |
| Delay and completeness of responses to Jan/Feb 2024 requests | OSU unreasonably delayed/full production of some records lacking | Delays, volume, and workload justified; certain redactions appropriate | OSU unreasonably delayed; must produce or certify as to certain records, with privacy redactions |
| Striking/late submission of evidence, sanctions | OSU's late evidence should be struck and sanctions imposed | Evidence should be considered; sanctions unwarranted | Strike late evidence, but deny sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wadd v. City of Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 50 (timeliness in public records production judged by reasonableness, considering all circumstances)
- State ex rel. Hansen v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (materials beyond pleadings preclude Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. Andrews, 48 Ohio St.2d 283 (public office must organize to timely respond to records requests, regardless of workload)
- Taxpayers Coalition v. City of Lakewood, 86 Ohio St.3d 385 (right to compel only records in existence at time of request)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Coroner’s Office, 2017-Ohio-8988 (timeliness and scope of disclosure may depend on need for redactions)