2020 Ohio 3197
Ohio2020Background
- Aug. 1, 2018: Union requested “an emailed copy” of application files and test reports for named job applicants from the City of Cleveland under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
- Aug. 20–Sept. 18, 2018: Cleveland notified the union that responsive records had been uploaded to its Public Records Center and sent e-mails with hyperlinks and viewing/downloading instructions; the union later filed mandamus (Aug. 23).
- During mediation/certification, Cleveland submitted evidence (emails, affidavits, and records) showing it had uploaded records and that the union had accessed/viewed them; the union maintained some evaluation/experience records were not produced.
- The Eighth District found Cleveland had produced the contested evaluation records (citing over 25 pages of records) and dismissed the mandamus action as moot, ordering each side to bear its own costs.
- The union appealed, arguing (1) Cleveland failed to “transmit” records and did not provide them in the chosen emailed form, (2) Cleveland did not promptly release certain records, and (3) the union was entitled to statutory damages and attorney fees. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cleveland violated R.C. 149.43(B)(7)(a) / (B)(6) by sending hyperlinks (requiring the requester to log in) instead of transmitting an emailed copy in the form the union chose | Union: a hyperlink requiring access/login is not a transmission of a copy and is not the “emailed copy” requested | Cleveland: sending emails with hyperlinks that allow viewing/downloading transmitted the records; records were produced in the requested medium | Court: hyperlinks in emailed notices constituted transmission; union did not prove noncompliance (and did not timely preserve some statutory-form arguments) |
| Whether Cleveland failed to “promptly” release records under R.C. 149.43(B)(1), specifically applicant-evaluation/work-experience records | Union: certain evaluation records were produced only in the court certification months after the request (128 days), so production was not prompt | Cleveland: records were uploaded in Aug.–Sept.; affidavits/evidence show union accessed/viewed records earlier | Court: union failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a lack of prompt production; record supports Cleveland’s position |
| Whether the union is entitled to statutory damages and attorney fees under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) | Union: statutory relief is warranted because Cleveland failed to transmit records properly and delayed production | Cleveland: complied with R.C. 149.43(B); no statutory violation occurred | Court: because no violation of R.C. 149.43(B) was established, statutory damages and attorney fees are not warranted; affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545 (explaining mandamus as the remedy to compel compliance with Ohio’s Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537 (providing that producing requested records generally renders mandamus claims moot)
- State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (requiring clear-and-convincing proof for extraordinary relief under the Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13 (discussing entitlement to attorney fees when a public office fails to timely respond under R.C. 149.43(B))
- Kish v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162 (describing the Public Records Act as conferring the people’s right to inspect government records and the policy of open government)