State Ex Rel. DiFranco v. City of South Euclid
138 Ohio St. 3d 367
| Ohio | 2014Background
- DiFranco requested nine categories of public records from the city on Oct 13, 2011; city received Oct 14, 2011 via certified mail.
- The city did not respond for two months, until mandamus was filed on Dec 16, 2011.
- City produced some responsive documents on Dec 20, 2011, but the production was incomplete.
- DiFranco submitted an expert affidavit in Feb 2012 alleging more records existed.
- City later certified in July 2012 that additional documents were produced on June 18, 2012 and none remained outstanding.
- Eighth District held the case moot and denied damages and fees; Ohio Supreme Court reversed on damages and affirmed/modified on fees via remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages or fees despite mootness and public benefit. | DiFranco entitled to statutory damages; public-benefit test not required for damages. | Appellate court denied damages/fees due to lack of public benefit. | Damages awarded; public-benefit test not required for damages. |
| Attorney fees under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b). | Fees should be awarded under mandatory/discretionary provisions. | Fees barred because no judgment ordering compliance was issued. | Fees denied; no judgment ordering compliance existed. |
| Application of statutory damages amount and mitigation. | Damages accrue for days of noncompliance starting Dec 16, 2011. | Mitigation factors may reduce damages under statute. | Damages awarded at $100 per day, subject to statutory mitigation on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372 (2008-Ohio-6253) (mandamus damages/fees framework under 2007 amendments)
- Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, 104 Ohio St.3d 399 (2004-Ohio-6557) (attorney-fee prerequisites and public benefit analysis)
- Cranford v. Cleveland, 103 Ohio St.3d 196 (2004-Ohio-4884) (abuse-of-discretion standard in discretionary-fee context)
- Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10 (2011-Ohio-6009) (Damages/fees analysis post-2007 amendments; public benefit discussed)
- Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 129 Ohio St.3d 304 (2011-Ohio-3279) (aggrieved status in public-records forfeiture context; relevance rejected for damages)
- Sylvania Home Tel. Co. v. Richards, 94 Ohio St.287 (1916) (interpretation of judgments and related standards (historical))