State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. FitzGerald (Slip Opinion)
145 Ohio St. 3d 92
| Ohio | 2015Background
- In May–July 2014 the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) requested key‑card swipe data for six county employees, including then‑County Executive Edward FitzGerald. The county produced data for five employees but withheld FitzGerald’s data.
- The county relied on R.C. 149.433 (security/infrastructure records) and submitted affidavits showing verified threats to FitzGerald and that swipe data could reveal travel patterns and nonpublic entryways.
- ORP filed a mandamus action seeking release; the county maintained the data were exempt but later (January 2015) disclosed FitzGerald’s swipe records to the Plain Dealer.
- The county subsequently moved offices and demolished the old administration building; FitzGerald left office. The court took judicial notice of these changed circumstances.
- The Supreme Court held that the swipe data were security records at the time of the original request but, given changed circumstances and voluntary disclosure to the press, the county waived any exemption and must release the records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether key‑card swipe data are exempt security or infrastructure records under R.C. 149.433 | ORP: data are public records and must be released | County: data are security/infrastructure records because they reveal travel patterns and secured entry points and relate to verified threats | At time of request data were security records (protected) because affidavits showed verified threats and risk to executive’s safety; not infrastructure records |
| Whether subsequent events (move/demolition and end of FitzGerald's term) affect exempt status | ORP: changed circumstances and prior disclosure mean records are now public | County: original denial was proper; no duty to re‑examine old requests; would treat as new request | Changed circumstances (new building, demolition, official no longer in office) remove security/infrastructure concerns, so exemption no longer applies |
| Whether voluntary disclosure to media waives exemption | ORP: county’s release to Plain Dealer waived any right to claim exemption | County: release to press does not obligate production to ORP; maintained original denial was proper | Voluntary release to press waived claim of exemption; waiver supports ordering release to ORP |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate remedy now given original proper denial | ORP: mandamus required to compel compliance with Public Records Act | County/dissent: writ inappropriate because respondents met duties when they responded and denial was proper; no duty to revisit old requests | Court: mandamus proper — relator entitled to records now; writ granted ordering release |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (Ohio 2006) (mandamus is remedy to enforce Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones‑Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2008) (custodian bears burden to prove an exception to disclosure)
- State ex rel. Plunderbund Media, L.L.C. v. Born, 141 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2014) (records revealing threats to an executive can be "security records" exempt from disclosure)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126 (Ohio 2002) (providing requested records to relator generally renders mandamus claim moot)
- State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Petro, 80 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio 1997) (voluntary public disclosure can waive exemption to disclosure)