2024 Ohio 2625
Ohio Ct. Cl.2024Background
- Alex Schaffer, representing himself, filed four public records complaints against The Ohio State University (OSU) alleging delays and improper handling of his requests for athletic department records.
- Three cases involved whether OSU’s consolidated and delayed responses to related requests were lawful; the fourth alleged OSU failed to respond at all to certain requests.
- The cases were consolidated by the Special Master due to common legal and factual issues, and mediation was bypassed in favor of direct adjudication.
- The Special Master recommended partially finding in Schaffer’s favor due to unreasonable delays, but said he was not aggrieved by the consolidated responses and denied sanctions and other relief.
- Both parties filed objections and motions relating to the Special Master’s report; the court opted to decide matters on the merits in the interest of fairness and judicial efficiency.
- Judge Sadler adopted the Special Master’s recommendations and ruled that Schaffer is entitled to his filing fees and costs (except attorney fees); OSU was ordered to release or certify records in part of one case, with redactions for third-party privacy, and was found in violation of Ohio public records law for unreasonable delays.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OSU’s consolidated responses aggrieved Schaffer | Consolidation prevented use as intended | He received all requested data, and could re-sort | Not aggrieved; data was complete and useable |
| Whether delay beyond 5 days to fulfill record requests violated law | OSU must respond more quickly; delays unreasonable | Some delays justified; existing responses reasonable | Delays over 5 days (here) were unreasonable, a violation |
| Whether OSU failed to respond to certain requests | OSU ignored certain record requests | No additional responsive documents exist | Must produce or certify requested records or redact |
| Whether OSU’s conduct warranted sanctions | OSU abused court process with late evidence | No sanctionable conduct occurred | No sanctions, but cautioned about future conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (burden is on records custodian to prove exceptions to public disclosure)
- State ex rel. Wadd v. City of Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 50 ("promptly" means "without delay and with reasonable speed"; reasonableness is fact-dependent)
- Kish v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162 (policy behind Ohio’s public records act; expedient resolution encouraged)
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. R & D Chem. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio courts favor merits-based case resolution)