State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake (Slip Opinion), 146 Ohio St. 3d 292

Background

Relator James E. Pietrangelo II (pro se) requested itemized attorney-fee invoices from the city of Avon Lake for litigation between him and the city; the city produced invoices but redacted narrative descriptions and detailed time/rate information claiming attorney-client privilege/work-product.
Pietrangelo filed a mandamus petition in the Ninth District seeking unredacted invoices and statutory damages; cross-motions for summary judgment followed and the court ordered sealed, in-camera review of the unredacted invoices.
The Ninth District ordered disclosure of all nonexempt portions but required the city to unredact the invoices’ "Professional Fee Summary" (hours, rates, totals) while the city retained redactions of other detailed line items.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed in part and denied relief in part: it held narrative descriptions are privileged and exempt, but concluded the city had disclosed nonexempt information and denied statutory damages and sanctions.
Justice Kennedy (joined by Justice French) concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing only the narrative services column is privileged and that the remaining columns (dates, attorney names, hours, rates) must be released, and that statutory damages should be awarded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether itemized attorney-billing statements must be disclosed under Ohio's Public Records Act	Pietrangelo: dates, hours, rates, and attorney IDs in invoices are nonexempt and must be disclosed	City: detailed line-item billing entries (including dates/hours/rates tied to narratives) are privileged or inextricably intertwined with privileged narratives and may be withheld	Court: narrative descriptions are privileged and exempt; nonexempt information generally must be disclosed, but here the city had already disclosed nonexempt portions and the contested professional-fee summaries could be released as ordered by the court of appeals; other requested detailed line items were inextricably intertwined and exempt in this context
Scope of redaction required for attorney-client privilege	Pietrangelo: only the narrative/service-description column is privileged and should be redacted; remaining columns must be produced	City: broader redactions necessary because dates/hours/rates correlate with privileged narratives and could reveal strategy	Held: majority treats some correlated billing details as inextricably intertwined with privileged narratives in this litigation context and thus exempt; concurrence would have ordered only narratives redacted and all other columns released
Entitlement to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C) for wrongful withholding	Pietrangelo: statutory damages should be awarded because city withheld nonexempt information	City: reasonable belief based on precedent justified withholding; damages discretionary and should be denied	Held: statutory damages denied because court concluded a reasonable public office could have believed withholding was justified given interplay of precedent; concurrence dissented, arguing no reasonable office could withhold non-narrative billing data after precedent settled
Request for sanctions and to strike portions of respondent's answer	Pietrangelo: appellees’ pleadings were frivolous and warranted Civ.R. 11 sanctions/striking	City: answer not frivolous	Held: motion denied; court found no abuse of discretion by court of appeals in denying sanctions

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (mandamus is proper remedy to enforce Public Records Act)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (custodian bears burden to prove applicability of disclosure exceptions)
State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10 (2011) (narrative portions of billing statements protected by attorney-client privilege; summaries may suffice)
State ex rel. Anderson v. Vermilion, 134 Ohio St.3d 120 (2012) (non-narrative billing info—general matter, dates, hours, rate, money—may be nonexempt and should be disclosed when not withheld in summary form)
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (2012) (discusses privilege as applied to attorney billing statements)
State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood, 86 Ohio St.3d 385 (1999) (portions of itemized attorney-fee billing statements can be covered by attorney-client privilege)
State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 87 Ohio St.3d 535 (2000) (attorney-client communications are prohibited from disclosure under state law)
State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224 (2010) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 75 Ohio St.3d 23 (1996) (if court finds excepted information in record, that information must be redacted and remaining information released)
State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St.3d 79 (1988) (same principle on redaction and release of nonexempt portions)
State ex rel. Doe v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 44 (2009) (standards for awarding or denying statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C))