State Ex Rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office
133 Ohio St. 3d 139
| Ohio | 2012Background
- McCaffrey, an attorney, seeks public records from the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office related to investigations and grand jury matters tied to the Oakhill Renaissance Place project.
- Relator submitted two requests in 2010 (May 21 and July 28) seeking broad categories of documents, including calendars, hours/duties, emails, and communications with judges and grand jurors.
- In 2008-2010, special prosecutors were appointed to assist investigations; many public officials and entities were involved in related litigation and grand jury activity.
- Respondents produced some records but denied or redacted others, and raised exemptions (attorney-client privilege, trial-preparation, privacy) and nonexistence of certain records.
- McCaffrey filed mandamus to compel access to specified records and metadata; the court ultimately granted relief only for work-related calendar entries from November 1, 2008 to July 2010.
- This decision resolves what records exist or do not exist, which portions are public, and whether metadata must be disclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether metadata was properly requested and must be disclosed | McCaffrey sought metadata with May/July 2010 requests. | No prior metadata-specific request; R.C. 149.43(C) requires a prior request. | Metadata not required; prior request not satisfied. |
| Whether certain records actually exist | Records regarding communications with Judge Evans and grand jury existed. | No evidence those records exist; denials were consistent. | Fifth–seventh category records do not exist; no mandamus duty to disclose non-existent records. |
| Whether calendars are public records and which parts are discloseable | All calendars are public records. | Personal calendars may be non-public; only work-related portions are records. | Work-related calendar entries are public records; non-work portions are not. |
| Whether records of hours/duties and related emails are disclosure-eligible | Hours, duties, and emails should be disclosed, subject to exemptions. | Attorney-client privilege and privilege-protected narrative portions may be redacted. | Redacted attorney-client work product portions are permissible; non-privileged portions disclosed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 1994) (trial-preparation exemption in criminal context; public records limits)
- Internatl. Union v. Voinovich, 100 Ohio App.3d 372 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 1995) (calendar not public record if not documenting official activities)
- Kish v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162 (2006) (records documenting official activities qualified as public records)
- State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes, 2011-Ohio-3093 (Ohio) (mandamus requires showing by clear and convincing evidence; burden on relator)
- Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255 (2012-Ohio-753) (public records scope and duties; documentation of office functions)
- State ex rel. Mack v. Collier, 129 Ohio St.3d 497 (2011-Ohio-4188) (waiver and scope of mandamus claims; relator must plead requested relief)
- Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 1994) (trial-preparation/privilege considerations in public-records)