State Ex Rel. O'Shea & Associates Co. v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, 962 N.E.2d 297

O’Shea requested CMHA records for the last 15 years documenting lead poisoning in CMHA dwellings, plus related records; CMHA produced insurance policies and requested minutes but claimed lead records were not public.
CMHA argued the lead records request was overbroad or sought information rather than specific records; CMHA asserted portions were exempt.
The Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for lead records, ordered disclosure with Social Security redacted, and awarded statutory damages and attorney fees to O’Shea.
CMHA sought reconsideration, raising HUD privacy concerns and federal Privacy Act implications without timely evidence; the appellate court later affirmed and awarded fees.
This court reviews mandamus under the Public Records Act, addresses whether the records are subject to disclosure, and whether exemptions apply or fees are appropriate.
The Supreme Court of Ohio clarifies the scope of disclosure, redaction requirements, and that attorney fees may be denied where records are improperly favored or where information is personal and not required to document CMHA’s activities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lead-poisoning documents are public records under R.C. 149.43	O’Shea contends documents are records and subject to disclosure.	CMHA argues records are overbroad and contain personal information not constituting CMHA activities.	Yes; most non-identifying portions are subject to disclosure with redactions.
Whether the request improperly sought information rather than records	O’Shea clarifies that records exist and were sought.	CMHA asserts the request sought information rather than specific records.	The request was proper as a records request, not just information.
Whether the personal identifying information in the lead-poisoning documents is exempt from disclosure	N/A; focus is CMHA’s burden to show exemptions.	Personal data should be exempt as not documenting CMHA activities.	Personal identifying information must be redacted; other non-identifying portions must be disclosed.
Whether federal Privacy Act or HUD requirements exempt the records	N/A; focus on whether exemptions apply.	Privacy Act applies due to HUD funding considerations.	Federal Privacy Act does not exempt; HUD-related concerns insufficient to exempt.
Whether attorney fees were properly awarded to O’Shea	O’Shea seeks fees for work by its principal attorney.	Fees should be awarded if records disclosure is warranted; however, evidence of payment was lacking.	No attorney-fee award; fees inappropriate in mandamus where key records were restricted.

State ex rel. McCleary v. Roberts, 88 Ohio St.3d 365 (2000) (personal information not a public-records target; does not document agency activities)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Daniels, 108 Ohio St.3d 518 (2006) (lead notices/reports subject to disclosure; not only general information)
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Akron, 104 Ohio St.3d 399 (2004) (in-house attorney fees; disclosure standards for records)
State ex rel. Johnson v. City of Columbus, 106 Ohio St.3d 160 (2005) (home addresses not records; focus on documenting agency policies)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (strict construction of exemptions; burden on custodian)