State Ex Rel. Data Trace Information Services, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer
131 Ohio St. 3d 255
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Relators seek a writ of mandamus to compel the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer to provide electronic copies of records recorded in July–August 2010 at cost, not $2 per page; recorder’s office shifted to charging $2 per page for electronic copies and $1 per CD previously; 2011 charter changes placed fiscal officer in charge of recorder functions; policy changes expanded to charge $2 per page and $.05 per page for non-recorded documents; relators argue electronic copies are public records and should be provided at actual cost.
- Relators Data Trace Information Services and Property Insight store and index electronic images of deeds, mortgages, and related public records; their clients are title insurers and others needing access to these records.
- The recorder’s office in 2010 began charging $2 per page for electronic copies and announced it would provide only paper prints; in 2011 a new county charter replaced the recorder with the fiscal officer in the duties relating to public records.
- Relators’ Oct. 5, 2010 requests sought CDs containing July–August 2010 documents; after amendments, the case proceeded with requests for copies at cost, and arguments about whether CDs or per-page charges apply.
- The court ultimately grants a writ to compel copies at actual cost (no more than $1 per CD) for July–August 2010, and denies mandamus to amend the public-records policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether electronically recorded documents are subject records under R.C. 149.43 | Data Trace/Property Insight: yes, records under 149.43. | Fiscal officer: no, not records documented by the recorder's office. | Yes, they are public records. |
| What fee applies to electronic copies: cost under 149.43 vs photocopy fee under 317.32(I) | Cost under 149.43; CDs at or near $1 each. | $2 per page under 317.32(I). | Copies must be at actual cost under 149.43(B)(1) for CDs. |
| Whether the master CDs must be provided under the request | Requests for master CDs were asserted via amended complaint. | Not required by the original requests; policy change rendered moot. | Not required to provide master CDs absent proper amendment/request. |
| Whether the public-records policy must be amended to revert to prior lower fees | Policy should reflect $1 per CD as before. | Policy in effect complies with law; no obligation to revert. | Writ denied insofar as mandamus seeks to amend an ineffective policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kish v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162 (2006-Ohio-1244) (broad definition of records under the Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Slagle v. Rogers, 103 Ohio St.3d 89 (2004-Ohio-4354) (copied records at cost; conflicts with other fee provisions)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391 (2008-Ohio-4788) (liberal construction in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364 (2006-Ohio-1825) (open government policy and disclosure)
- State ex rel. Margolius v. Cleveland, 62 Ohio St.3d 456 (1992-Ohio-) (compilation of information from public records is a public record)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Schweikert, 38 Ohio St.3d 170 (1988-) (broad public-records standard; media access)
- State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (2011-Ohio-625) (public-records act applied in mandamus context)
- State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d 619 (1994-Ohio-) (cost principles for public copies; per-page vs actual cost)