2013 Ohio 4459
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Relator State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer seeks a mandamus writ to compel Judge Hunter to disclose court records under Sup.R. 44–47.
- Enquirer requested December 2012 docket records showing Judge Hunter’s delinquency proceedings with full juvenile names.
- January 2013 docket provided with redactions (initials) per court email citing an opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney.
- Enquirer argued redactions violated Sup.R. 44–47 and public-records access; Hunter agreed to redactions under Juv.R. 37 and related authority.
- Trial appellate panel held Sup.R. 44–47 open-records presumption; Juv.R. 5 lacked local rule authorizing initials, so full names should be used.
- Court granted writ, holding Enquirer entitled to the full names on December 2012 docket; Sup.R. 44–47 governed release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sup.R. 44–47 require open access to juvenile docket names | Enquirer: full names must be disclosed | Hunter: confidentiality under rules justifies initials | Yes; open access required full names |
| Whether Juv.R. 5 local rules authorize initials instead of full names | Enquirer: no local rule permits initials substitute | Hunter: Juv.R. 5 allows substitution by local rule | No local rule; full names must be used |
| Whether the Rules of Superintendence have binding force to compel disclosure | Enquirer: Sup.R. 44–47 bind court to disclose | Hunter: rules are housekeeping; confidentiality controls | Yes; Sup.R. 44–47 govern disclosure and mandamus relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff, 132 Ohio St.3d 481 (2012-Ohio-3328) (mandamus standard for record access under superintendence rules)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436 (2013-Ohio-1762) (supremes on mandamus rights under Sup.R. 44–47)
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 90 Ohio St.3d 79 (2000-Ohio-1214) (confidentiality in certain juvenile records; open access framework context)
- Myers v. Toledo, 110 Ohio St.3d 218 (2006-Ohio-4353) (express exclusion/ inclusion principles for confidentiality rules)
- Seymour v. Hampton, 2012-Ohio-5053 (Fourth Dist. Pike No. 11CA821) (superintendence rules have force against contrary arguments)
- State ex rel. Gettys, 49 Ohio App.2d 241 (1976-Ohio App.2d 241) (superintendence rules magnitude in procedural context)