State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 273
| Ohio | 2016Background
- On Dec. 29, 2014 Avon Lake officers responded to a complaint by James Pietrangelo at a skate park; officers took handwritten notes and prepared an incident report.
- Pietrangelo says he hand-delivered a written public-records request to the police records clerk on Dec. 30, 2014; the city and records clerk say no written request was received and that Pietrangelo only made verbal inquiries.
- Officers attest their handwritten notes were personal convenience notes used to prepare the report and were destroyed after the report was completed; respondents later assembled and gave Pietrangelo a CD of records on Mar. 18, 2015.
- Pietrangelo filed for a writ of mandamus (Feb. 5, 2015) seeking production under Ohio’s Public Records Act, statutory damages, costs, and fees; mediation failed and the record was supplemented with affidavits and a video Pietrangelo recorded of his Dec. 30 visit.
- The court found that all existing responsive records had been produced and that the records allegedly remaining (officers’ notes and an alleged draft report) no longer existed, rendering the mandamus claim moot.
- The court also held Pietrangelo failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he hand-delivered the written request, so he was not entitled to statutory damages; a concurrence disputed that evidentiary ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of mandamus claim | Records (officers' notes; draft report) were not produced and remain outstanding | All existing responsive records were produced; nonexistent records cannot be produced | Mandamus claim is moot because only unproduced records no longer exist |
| Status of officers' handwritten notes | Notes are part of department skate-park file and may contain information not in the report, so they are public and should be produced | Notes were personal convenience notes used to prepare the report and were destroyed; thus not public or producible | Notes, if destroyed, cannot be produced; personal convenience notes are not public records when used solely to prepare a report |
| Existence/production of a "draft" report | Records clerk told Pietrangelo a draft was available on Dec. 30; draft is a responsive record | Department maintains there was only a report in preparation, not a separate producible draft; completed report was later provided | No existing separate draft remained; completed report was produced, contributing to mootness |
| Entitlement to statutory damages (proof of hand-delivery) | Pietrangelo says he hand-delivered the written request; submitted a video and affidavit | City and employees deny receipt; affidavits and file searches show no written request; video is inconclusive | Pietrangelo failed to prove hand-delivery by clear and convincing evidence; not entitled to statutory damages |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (public-records mandamus is proper remedy)
- State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (relator must prove entitlement by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537 (providing records generally renders mandamus claim moot)
- State ex rel. Cranford v. Cleveland, 103 Ohio St.3d 196 (personal convenience notes not public records)
- State ex rel. Steffen v. Kraft, 67 Ohio St.3d 439 (same: personal notes for convenience are not public)
- State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255 (relators need not show lack of adequate remedy at law in public-records mandamus)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (burden to prove delivery by clear and convincing evidence for statutory damages)
- State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288 (discussion of clear-and-convincing standard)
- State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 146 Ohio St.3d 292 (prior related decision involving Pietrangelo and Avon Lake)
