2011 Ohio 1347
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Davila made a written public records request on 12/16/2008 for 24-hour reel-to-reel tapes of East Liverpool Police recording 911 calls and radio traffic from the 1990s.
- A second request on 1/6/2009 sought the retention schedules and disposal forms used to authorize destruction of records.
- Davila filed a mandamus and civil forfeiture action on 3/2/2009 seeking production of tapes or civil forfeiture if destroyed.
- McVay testified the tapes were destroyed and no authorization to destroy them was obtained; the police department did not retain the tapes or the requested disposal forms.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding the request overbroad; the court did not reach the aggrieved-person issue because the overbreadth resolve mootness; the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- This appeal focuses on whether the request was overbroad and whether Davila could be an aggrieved person under RC 149.351(B)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Davila’s request overbroad under RC 149.43? | Davila argues the request was specific and identifiable. | Appellees contend the request sought voluminous, unduly broad records. | Yes; court held overbroad and unenforceable. |
| Is Davila an “aggrieved person” under RC 149.351(B)(2)? | Davila contends he is aggrieved by destruction of records he requested. | Appellees argued lack of access via alternative logs negates aggrievement. | Moot; issue not reached because overbreadth resolved the case. |
| Did Appellees waive the overbreadth challenge by not raising it in the summary-judgment motion? | Davila asserts waiver of the overbreadth objection. | Appellees argue the issue was properly raised sua sponte. | Waiver issue not dispositive; the court addressed overbreadth as controlling. |
| Should the court address aggrieved-status given mootness? | Davila maintains aggrieved status should be considered. | Aggrieved-status becomes moot after ruling on overbreadth. | Moot; not addressed on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 1989) (indefinite requests are unenforceable under public records law)
- Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391 (Ohio 2008) (overbroad public records requests are not entitled to disclosure)
- Dehler v. Spatny, 2010-Ohio-5711 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (overbreadth of records requests last seven years unconstitutional in prison context)
- Margolius v. Cleveland, 62 Ohio St.3d 456 (Ohio 1992) (form of records vs. breadth of request; focus on form in Margolius)