State ex rel. Davis v. Metzger (Slip Opinion)
139 Ohio St. 3d 423
Ohio2014Background
- Davis sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals after requesting six employees' personnel files under R.C. 149.43; production occurred two hours after filing, but Metzger and the district were unaware until the next day.
- Requests were submitted Dec 8, 2011; district reviewed with legal counsel before production, which occurred Dec 13, 2011, at 3:28 p.m.; complaint served Dec 14, 2011.
- Fifth District held Metzger's production time was reasonable and Davis engaged in unnecessary discovery; it awarded Metzger fees subject to a hearing.
- Davis argued the response time was inappropriate and that frivolous conduct findings required a hearing; Metzger argued investigations were proper and timely.
- R.C. 149.43 allows review and potential clarification of ambiguous requests; the requester must identify records clearly; counsel review can justify delays.
- The court of appeals erred in not holding a hearing before awarding attorney fees for frivolous conduct, as required by R.C. 2323.51(B)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district's response to the requests was timely | Davis argues response was too slow based on ambiguity and lack of explanation. | Metzger argues response within a reasonable time under the act. | Yes; the response was timely/within a reasonable time. |
| Whether Davis engaged in frivolous conduct | Davis contends no frivolous conduct; production occurred after action filed. | Metzger contends Davis engaged in frivolous discovery and motions. | Court must hold a hearing before determining frivolous conduct; remanded for a hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 133 Ohio St.3d 122 (2012) (clarifies requirement to refine overbroad requests and that compliance cited when invited to refine)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33 (2006) (requester must identify records with reasonable clarity; district can seek clarification)
- State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d 619 (1994) (public-records review to redact exempt materials prior to release)
- Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St.3d 160 (2005) (home addresses of state employees not public records; need redaction)