2012 Ohio 4239
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Relator Scott Dunlap filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel production of certain legal billing invoices.
- Respondents Chris Smith (Fiscal Officer) and Rochelle Menningen (Fiscal Assistant) argued the records were protected by attorney-client privilege.
- Relator had requested invoices from Loveland & Brosius LLC (Oct 1, 2010–May 17, 2011) and calendar records; invoices were redacted as privileged.
- A second request (Oct 17, 2011) sought meeting materials from a trustee’s residence and related notes/minutes and attorney details; Respondents maintained privilege.
- Respondents advised that invoices and notes were protected; some documents were non-existent beyond notes, which were also privileged.
- The trial court or court of appeals ultimately denied the writ, holding the records were properly protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney-client privilege shields the invoices from disclosure | Dunlap argues records are public | Menningen/Smith assert privilege and disclosure is barred | Privilege adequately protects the records |
| Whether the township properly invoked the attorney-client privilege | Dunlap contends privilege not invoked | Township invoked privilege through counsel in responses | Privilege properly invoked by the township |
| Whether the provided records complied with the public records request | Dunlap claims inadequate/incomplete public records | Records provided were appropriate summaries with privileged portions redacted | Responses complied; redactions were proper |
| Whether disclosure of unredacted invoices by a confidential source waives privilege | Dunlap asserts waiver due to unredacted copy obtained from confidential source | No evidence of township’s waiver; privilege remains protected | No waiver established; privilege preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard for public records mandamus)
- State ex rel. Parsons v. Fleming, 68 Ohio St.3d 509 (Ohio 1994) (summary-judgment guidance cited for Civ.R. 56)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary-judgment standard foundational case)
- State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 2011) (attorney-client privilege limits access to detailed invoices; summaries suffice)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391 (Ohio 2008) (liberal construction of R.C. 149.43 in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Perrea v. Cincinnati Pub. Schools, 123 Ohio St.3d 410 (Ohio 2009) (public records access and privilege considerations)