2012 Ohio 3749
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Smith filed a mandamus action to obtain Bath Township public records in 2011; the board raised Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal arguments and later amended the complaint to name Bath Township and Ruth Hollenbacher as defendants.
- The trial court allowed Smith to amend and later granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, holding records were provided or access granted and copying costs properly ensured.
- Smith’s various public-records requests stretched from April 2009 through February 2011, with multiple responses indicating records either did not exist, were not public records, or would require creation of new documents.
- The township policy charged 10 cents per page for copies over 15 pages; Smith prepaid $398.40 for the requested materials, which was later credited by $24.40 after accounting for actual copies.
- A key issue at summary judgment was whether the duplication costs were properly calculated and whether Smith overpaid, with the record showing an invoice for $317.23 and a refunded overpayment, and the court ultimately affirming the decision as no material fact remained.
- The appellate court applied de novo review to determine whether the grasp of the Public Records Act supported the trial court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondents provided the records and charged properly | Smith contends records were not provided or billed correctly | Bath Township asserts it provided or made records available and cost charges complied with policy | No genuine issue; records were provided or availability confirmed and costs proper |
| Whether some requests were overly broad or improperly framed | Smith argues records requested were sufficiently clear | Board allowed only records that existed; overly broad requests not required to be fulfilled | No duty to create records; overly broad requests not obligations under the Public Records Act |
| Whether emails and trial-preparation records are public records | Smith sought emails related to litigation and injunction; not clearly excluded | Emails tied to litigation or trial prep are not public records under certain exemptions | Requests deemed overly broad and/or not within public records scope; not a violation to withhold |
| Whether duplication costs were correctly charged and refunded | Smith challenges the charged duplication costs and asserts overpayment | Costs charged at policy rates; any overpayment refunded; invoice not properly authenticated | Summary judgment upheld; board complied with cost policy and refunded excess |
| Whether the court erred in granting summary judgment given factual disputes | Smith claims genuine issues of material fact exist | Records requests either fulfilled or appropriately denied; no factual dispute precludes summary judgment | No reversible error; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry, 85 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 1999) (public records requests must be reasonably clear; not required to create records)
- State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 273 (Ohio 1998) (limits on scope of public records requests; not obligated to satisfy overly broad requests)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 80 Ohio St.3d 425 (Ohio 1997) (scope of records and burden on requester to identify records)
- State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman, 92 Ohio St.3d 312 (Ohio 2001) (overbreadth of request; limits on records production)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig, 132 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus relief when records not produced; timing and compliance under statute)
- Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo–Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537 (Ohio 2009) (providing records can moot mandamus claims; records timely supplied)
- New Lexington v. Norris, 89 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (public-records policies; copying costs and labor considerations)