State ex rel. Ames v. Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, 2022 Ohio 3990

Relator Brian Ames requested unredacted legal-invoice records concerning legal services billed to Public Entity Risk Services of Ohio (PERSO) for Rootstown Township–related claims handled through the Ohio Township Association Risk Management Authority (OTARMA).
The Baker firm prepared and sent invoices to PERSO; it produced the invoices to Ames with the narrative descriptions of services redacted on attorney-client-privilege grounds.
Ames sued in mandamus under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43), naming the Baker firm, PERSO, and OTARMA, seeking production of unredacted invoices.
The Eleventh District granted defendants’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions and dismissed Ames’s petition, holding the invoice narratives are protected by attorney-client privilege despite recognizing private entities may be subject to the Public Records Act under the quasi-agency test.
The Ohio Supreme Court found the court of appeals misapplied the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standard (it treated Ames’s factual allegation as false rather than presuming it true), reversed, and remanded with instructions to perform an in camera inspection of the invoices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are private entities like PERSO subject to the Public Records Act under a quasi‑agency analysis?	Ames: PERSO and the Baker firm are subject because records relate to delegated public duties.	PERSO: Private entities that merely do business with public offices should not be treated as public‑record custodians.	Held: Quasi‑agency applies; PERSO is a proper party where the delegation prong is satisfied.
Do narrative descriptions in attorney invoices fall within attorney‑client privilege and are thus categorically exempt from disclosure?	Ames: The invoices contain no privileged information (he alleged as much).	Appellees: The narrative billing entries are privileged and exempt.	Held: Not resolved on pleadings; court of appeals erred by finding privilege on the face of the pleadings—requires in camera review.
Was dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) appropriate?	Ames: The court must accept his factual allegations as true and draw inferences in his favor.	Appellees: The redactions plainly indicate privilege, so dismissal is proper.	Held: Court of appeals misapplied Civ.R. 12(B)(6) by treating Ames’s allegation as false; reversal and remand required.
Proper procedural step to determine privilege?	Ames: Requested unredacted records; implied need for judicial review.	Appellees: Argued no in camera inspection necessary if privilege is evident.	Held: Court must conduct an in camera inspection before deciding privilege and disclosure.

State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 163 Ohio St.3d 304 (2021) (applies quasi‑agency test and emphasizes the primacy of delegated public duty for public‑records status)
State ex rel. Mazzaro v. Ferguson, 49 Ohio St.3d 37 (1990) (traditional tripartite quasi‑agency elements for private‑entity records)
State ex rel. Anderson v. Vermilion, 134 Ohio St.3d 120 (2012) (attorney‑fee invoices to public clients are public records; narratives may be privileged)
State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10 (2011) (recognizes privilege concerns for narrative billing entries)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 106 Ohio St.3d 113 (2005) (mandamus against private entities allowed when quasi‑agency factors are met)
State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine, 135 Ohio St.3d 191 (2013) (court should conduct in camera inspections before ruling on disclosure exceptions)
State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. Shirey, 78 Ohio St.3d 400 (1997) (inability to monitor or access records is not dispositive under quasi‑agency)
Clark v. Connor, 82 Ohio St.3d 309 (1998) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) requires courts to presume complaint allegations true and draw reasonable inferences for the nonmovant)