2012 Ohio 6012
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Morabito seeks public records mandamus to obtain videotapes from the sixth floor detention center for James Morabito’s confinement in Feb 2011.
- Cleveland retained surveillance/video data for 30 days; systems overwrite automatically unless saved on request.
- Lt. Carroll saved a portion of footage within 30 days; Morabito’s requests for full tapes were made after the 60-day window.
- Cleveland produced non-video records but asserted the videotapes were destroyed and no further footage existed.
- Motions: Cleveland moved to dismiss for mootness; the court converted to summary judgment and later granted it, denying mandamus and fees.
- Morabito sought statutory damages and attorney fees, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the case moot after destruction of tapes? | Morabito argues records may still exist digitally or via preservation. | Cleveland asserts tapes overwritten after 30 days; no records exist. | Yes; action is moot; tapes no longer exist and no duty to create records. |
| Did Cleveland comply with public records request for existing records? | Morabito contends additional records and retention details were withheld. | Cleveland released non-video records and the retention schedule; videotapes no longer exist. | Cleveland satisfied applicable non-exempt records; videotapes no longer exist. |
| Whether there was a duty to provide information beyond records (e.g., interrogations, officer identities) under RC 149.43? | Morabito seeks information beyond records, including interrogations and destruction details. | Public records statute obligates supplying records, not generated information; no duty to create records. | Requests outside RC 149.43 are not required; moot regarding the public records claim. |
| Whether Morabito is entitled to statutory damages or attorney fees? | Morabito sought damages/fees for public benefit or personal relief. | Damages/fees require public benefit and proper service of requests; none shown. | No damages or attorney fees awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehouse Co., Inc., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (sets the standard for summary judgment)
- Strothers v. Norton, 131 Ohio St.3d 359 (2012-Ohio-1007) (need for clear and convincing evidence for triable issues)
- State ex rel. Chatfield v. Gammill, 132 Ohio St.3d 36 (2012-Ohio-1862) (public records scope and mootness considerations)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 80 Ohio St.3d 425 (1997-Ohio-104) (duty to supply records, not information or created records)
- State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255 (2012-Ohio-753) (damages considerations under RC 149.43)