State ex rel. Mahajan v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 127 Ohio St. 3d 497

Dr. Mahajan, a physician licensed by the Ohio State Medical Board, sought unredacted records from the Board under the Public Records Act after a deposition of Katko, the Board's enforcement attorney, raised concerns about conduct.
The Board produced over 8,000 pages and Katko’s personnel file but redacted several items, including names and certain discussions, relying on exemptions for confidential investigative records and work product.
Dr. Mahajan filed a public-records mandamus action seeking unredacted copies of seven records and damages/attorney fees; the Board defended the redactions as permitted by R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) and other exemptions.
The Board’s redactions included names of individuals under investigation and quotes/depositions, with some redactions claimed under confidential law-enforcement investigatory records and work product exemptions.
The court held that some redactions were improper and granted the writ to disclose specific items (May 17, 2007 e-mail, portions of May 22, 2007 notes, and parts of May 31, 2007 memorandum) while affirming the remainder of the Board’s redactions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mahajan is entitled to unredacted records under the Public Records Act.	Mahajan seeks disclosure of records redacted under exemptions.	Board asserts exemptions for confidential investigative records and work product.	Partially granted; some records unredacted; others upheld with exemptions.
Whether R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) confidentiality applies to the records of physicians under investigation.	Names of doctors under investigation should be disclosed; confidentiality is limited to patients/complainants.	F(5) protects information received during an investigation, broad to cover physicians under investigation.	Mahajan waived confidentiality for his own name by requesting records, but other names remained confidential where applicable.
Whether certain redactions were properly classified as confidential law-enforcement investigatory records or work product.	Some redactions pertain to personnel discussions and should be disclosed.	Redactions conceal investigative strategy/work product to protect confidentiality.	Redactions tied to work product and confidential investigations upheld; some items not implicating privilege should be disclosed.
Whether Mahajan is entitled to statutory damages or attorney fees.	Relator seeks damages/fees for improper withholding.	Damages/fees denied unless procedural prerequisites met and claims meritorious.	Damages and fees denied; service requirements and overall meritfulness limit recovery.

State ex rel. Wallace v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 89 Ohio St.3d 431 (2000) (public records exemptions construed; board accountability)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (burden on custodian; strict construction of exemptions)
State Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Mentor, 89 Ohio St.3d 440 (2000) (scope of law-enforcement matters in PRA exemptions)
State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33 (2006) (confidentiality and waiver under investigations)
State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (1994) (administrative investigations and records scope)
State ex rel. McGee v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, 49 Ohio St.3d 59 (1990) (records relate to law-enforcement matters including boards)
State ex rel. Polovischak v. Mayfield, 50 Ohio St.3d 51 (1990) (context of administrative investigations under PRA)