State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Schools (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5149

Background

On August 4, 2019, Connor Betts — a 2013 graduate of Bellbrook High School — was killed after committing a mass shooting in Dayton; media requested his school records (including disciplinary records).
Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Schools refused the requests, citing R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) because disclosure is prohibited by state law (Ohio Student Privacy Act, R.C. 3319.321) and federal law (FERPA).
Media appellants sued for a writ of mandamus in the Second District Court of Appeals seeking disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43(B).
The Second District denied the writ, concluding R.C. 3319.321(B) prohibits release of personally identifiable information concerning a student without written consent, and that the statute contains no exception for a former student’s death.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: it held R.C. 3319.321(B) unambiguously forbids disclosure of the requested records (so the court did not resolve FERPA’s applicability); Justice Kennedy dissented, arguing the statute’s present-tense wording limits protection to current students.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 3319.321(B) bars release of records of a deceased adult former student	OSPA is silent on posthumous protection; FERPA and Dept. of Education practice treat adult students' FERPA rights as ending at death, so records should be disclosable	R.C. 3319.321(B) plainly prohibits release of personally identifiable information concerning any student without written consent; no death exception	Held: Statute unambiguous — applies to records relating to attendance at public school (including former students); death is not an exception; disclosure prohibited
Whether the OSPA is ambiguous so that FERPA, agency interpretation, or common-law privacy should guide construction	Because OSPA is silent on death, look to FERPA/agency guidance and common-law rules to interpret statute to permit disclosure after death	Plain statutory language controls; cannot rely on agency interpretation or common-law causes when statute is unambiguous	Held: OSPA is unambiguous; extrinsic aids not considered; agency FERPA interpretation irrelevant here
Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel disclosure under R.C. 149.43	Appellants: mandamus proper to enforce public-records rights	Respondent: if an applicable statutory exception exists, mandamus must be denied because no clear right to records	Held: Mandamus framework applies, but appellants failed to show a clear right because R.C. 3319.321(B) creates an exception to disclosure
Whether the Public Records Act’s 75‑year “sunset” and statute construction principles affect OSPA’s reach	Appellants: silence about death creates ambiguity favoring disclosure under liberal construction of the Public Records Act	Respondent: the sunset and statutory text show the legislature intentionally omitted a death exception; courts may not rewrite statute	Held: Sunset provision and plain text support that legislature did not intend a death exception; courts may not add one

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. School Choice Ohio, Inc. v. Cincinnati Pub. School Dist., 63 N.E.3d 1183 (Ohio 2016) (OSPA enacted to bring Ohio schools into compliance with FERPA)
State ex rel. Souffrance v. Doe, 968 N.E.2d 477 (Ohio 2012) (federal law treats records of former students as education records under FERPA)
State ex rel. Findlay Publ’g Co. v. Schroeder, 669 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio 1996) (no common-law privacy exemption for deceased individuals’ records absent statutory protection)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 899 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio 2008) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 995 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 2013) (burden on custodian to establish applicable exception)
State ex rel. Dynamic Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati, 66 N.E.3d 734 (Ohio 2016) (standard for reviewing court-of-appeals mandamus judgment)
Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc., 29 N.E.3d 903 (Ohio 2014) (courts may not add terms to an unambiguous statute)