State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine, 135 Ohio St. 3d 191

Lanham seeks a mandamus to force the attorney general to provide unredacted public records about Bubp’s simultaneous holding of state representative and mayor’s court magistrate offices.
Bubp served as both state representative and Ripley/Winchester mayor’s court magistrate in 2009–2010 and continued in Ripley after that.
A 2009–2010 media report prompted complaints that Bubp violated the Ohio Constitution and a related statute by holding dual offices.
Lanham, a Clermont County taxpayer, requested records concerning reports and actions related to Bubp’s dual-office holding, limited to 2009–date of request.
The AG produced 172 pages with several redactions and claimed attorney-client privilege; Lanham challenged the redactions and sought further disclosure and fees.
The court denied Lanham’s writ, finding the records were properly withheld under the attorney-client privilege and that there were no damages for statutory damages or fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Attorney-client privilege application	Lanham contends the redacted items are not privileged.	DeWine asserts the records are privileged communications.	Privilege applied; documents properly withheld.
Privilege log sufficiency and logging of items	Lanham challenges the completeness of the privilege log.	No duty to submit a privilege log in this mandamus case.	Log sufficiency not required; no error in withholding.
In camera review necessity	Due process precludes deciding on sealed records without full disclosure.	In camera review is standard and permissible for privilege determinations.	Court conducted in camera review; due process not violated.
Affidavits' personal knowledge basis	Affidavits lack personal knowledge for asserted facts.	Affidavits were based on direct familiarity with documents and procedures.	Affidavits sufficiently based on personal knowledge.
Damages and attorney fees under RC 149.43(C)	Lanham seeks statutory damages and fees for improper disclosure.	Privilege compliance negates damages and fees.	No statutory damages or attorney fees awarded.

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (standard for proving exemptions to disclosure are strictly construed against custodian)
State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St.3d 79 (1988) (mandatory in camera inspection when exemptions are challenged)
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 128 Ohio St.3d 1451 (2011) (public-records mandamus where exemptions asserted)