State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter (Slip Opinion), 24 N.E.3d 1170

In Dec. 2012 a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter requested the Hamilton County Juvenile Court docket entries showing cases Judge Tracie Hunter presided over for Dec. 1–31, 2012.
The juvenile-court administrator provided the docket but redacted juveniles’ full names to initials; the Enquirer demanded unredacted records.
The Enquirer filed a mandamus action in the First District Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling disclosure of the juveniles’ names.
The court administrator moved to substitute Judge Hunter as respondent; the court of appeals granted substitution and ordered Hunter to produce unredacted dockets.
Hunter appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court; while the appeal was pending the Court disqualified Hunter from acting as a judge, and she no longer controlled the December 2012 docket or records.
The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because Hunter lacked the authority to provide the requested relief and the controversy was no longer live.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Hunter can be compelled to produce unredacted juvenile names on her Dec. 2012 docket	The Enquirer argued the public has a right to access the unredacted docket entries; mandamus should compel disclosure	Hunter (as substituted respondent) opposed production; procedural attack also raised on proper respondent	Court did not decide the merits; appeal dismissed as moot because Hunter no longer controlled the records and therefore could not grant relief
Whether the appeal presented a live controversy	Enquirer maintained dispute remained live and review was appropriate	Hunter argued that circumstances changed so relief could not be provided by her	Court held no live controversy existed; case became hypothetical/academic and was moot

In re Disqualification of Hunter, 137 Ohio St.3d 1467 (2014) (court disqualified Judge Hunter under Gov.Jud.R. III(6)(A))
In re L.W., 168 Ohio App.3d 613 (2006) (describing test for mootness; issues are moot when they no longer present a genuine, live controversy)
Culver v. Warren, 84 Ohio App. 373 (1948) (quoted definition and discussion of mootness)