State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 612
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Relator Matthew Shaughnessy, an attorney assisting crime victims, made five written public-records requests to the City of Cleveland for police incident reports (assaults/felonious assaults) excluding certain categories; responses ranged from 12 to 31 business days.
- Cleveland explained its process: subject-matter database search, culling excluded categories, manual retrieval of each report by report number, printing, law-department legal review and redaction, and transmission.
- Shaughnessy submitted evidence that other Ohio cities (Akron, Canton, Columbus) and Cleveland in some post-filing instances produced similar records within 1–4 business days.
- Shaughnessy sought a writ ordering Cleveland to respond to future similar requests within eight business days (relying on State ex rel. Wadd v. Cleveland) and statutory damages for alleged unreasonable delays.
- The court denied the writ and statutory damages, concluding Cleveland’s multi-step retrieval and redaction process made its response times reasonable under the Public Records Act; Justice Kennedy dissented, arguing the requests were proper and an eight-business-day standard should apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of action | Shaughnessy: timeliness claim not mooted by later production | Cleveland: production moots case | Court: Not moot — timeliness claim remains justiciable |
| Whether requests were proper or required impermissible research | Shaughnessy: requests were specific, made on city form, thus proper | Cleveland: many requests required subject-matter searches and culling, so were overbroad/improper | Majority: several requests were improper as they required the city to identify records containing selected information; some requests nevertheless handled and not denied |
| Timeliness standard / reasonable period for production | Shaughnessy: Wadd’s eight-business-day rule should apply; other cities’ faster responses show reasonable time is shorter | Cleveland: due to search, retrieval, and redaction steps and volume/frequency of requests, longer response times were reasonable | Court: Considering all facts, Cleveland’s response times (12–31 business days) were reasonable; no clear legal duty to meet an eight-business-day deadline |
| Applicability of State ex rel. Wadd v. Cleveland | Shaughnessy: Wadd supports an eight-business-day deadline for incident reports | Cleveland: Wadd involved single-day accident reports and in-person inspection; not analogous | Court: Wadd inapplicable given broader date ranges, volume, and required retrieval/redaction steps |
| Statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) | Shaughnessy: seeks maximum statutory damages for each count | Cleveland: delays were reasonable, so damages unwarranted | Court: Denied statutory damages — no clear legal right to records within eight business days |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wadd v. Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 50 (1998) (held Cleveland must provide accident reports within eight days in that context)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600 (2009) (reasonable response time depends on all pertinent facts and circumstances)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, 104 Ohio St.3d 399 (2004) (police incident reports may be redacted to eliminate personal victim information)
- State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d 619 (1994) (Public Records Act contemplates opportunity to examine and redact records prior to release)
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St.3d 160 (2005) (prior disclosure of information does not convert a nonpublic record into a public record)
- State ex rel. Fant v. Tober, 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993) (Public Records Act does not compel a public office to conduct research or compile selected information)
- State ex rel. Carr v. London Corr. Inst., 144 Ohio St.3d 211 (2015) (distinguishing requests that require creation or compilation of new documents)
- State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 273 (1998) (limitations on requests that require searching voluminous documents for particular information)