2023 Ohio 1547
Ohio2023Background
- The OneOhio Recovery Foundation (the Foundation) is a private 501(c)(3) nonprofit created by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) among Ohio and many local governments to receive and disburse 55% of opioid-litigation settlement proceeds.
- The MOU prescribes a 29-member board with multiple state-appointed members and requires the governor to appoint the Foundation’s executive director; an expert panel (partly appointed by state officials) advises disbursements.
- Harm Reduction Ohio (HRO) sought board materials after being excluded from a Foundation meeting; the Foundation did not produce records and HRO filed an original-action petition for a writ of mandamus under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43).
- The Supreme Court considered whether the Foundation, though a private nonprofit, is the functional equivalent of a public office under State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery’s four-factor test (governmental function, level of government funding, extent of government involvement, creation by government).
- The Court found the Foundation performs a historically governmental function (disbursing public money), shows significant government involvement and was created by government parties; funding-level evidence was inconclusive.
- Holding: the Foundation is the functional equivalent of a public office; the Court granted mandamus to produce the records and awarded court costs but denied statutory damages and attorney fees because the Foundation reasonably believed it was not subject to the Public Records Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Public Records Act (is Foundation a "public office"?) | Foundation is the functional equivalent of a public office under Oriana House because it will receive/disburse public settlement funds and was created by government parties. | Foundation is a private nonprofit receiving private settlement proceeds and thus not subject to the Act. | Court: Foundation is the functional equivalent of a public office based on totality of Oriana House factors. |
| Historically governmental function factor | Disbursing settlement proceeds is a governmental function (public money distribution). | Distribution funds come from private settlements and recipients (services) are typically provided by private actors. | Court: Foundation’s role in receiving/disbursing public settlement money is a historically governmental function. |
| Level of government funding factor | Foundation’s funding is effectively public (55% of settlement proceeds; startup funds from AG). | Settlement proceeds are paid by private defendants and MOU anticipates non-government funding; HRO failed to prove a significant percent of revenue is from government. | Court: Record did not clearly show percentage from government; this factor inconclusive. |
| Remedies—statutory damages and attorney fees | HRO sought statutory damages and attorney fees for failure to produce records. | Foundation argued reasonable belief it was not covered, so damages/fees should be reduced/denied. | Court: Denied statutory damages and attorney fees because a well-informed person could reasonably have believed the Foundation was private at the time of the request; awarded court costs and writ. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio St.3d 456 (2006) (establishes four-factor functional-equivalency test for when a private entity is subject to the Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Repository v. Nova Behavioral Health, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 338 (2006) (analyzes government transfer of functions and government-funding factor)
- State ex rel. Bell v. Brooks, 130 Ohio St.3d 87 (2011) (examines government control and funding in functional-equivalency context)
- State ex rel. Hicks v. Fraley, 166 Ohio St.3d 141 (2021) (addresses mandatory costs and standards for denying statutory damages/attorney fees in public-records actions)
- State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (mandamus is proper remedy to enforce Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392 (2015) (clarifies relator’s burden to prove entitlement to writ by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 167 Ohio St.3d 566 (2022) (reiterates relator’s burden of proof in mandamus actions)
- Tobacco Use Prevention & Control Found. Bd. of Trustees v. Boyce, 127 Ohio St.3d 511 (2010) (contextual reference concerning legislature’s reallocation of settlement-related funds)