State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff
132 Ohio St. 3d 481
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Original action for mandamus and prohibition to access sealed records in State v. Cafaro (Mahoning C.P. Nos. 2010 CR 800 and 800A–I).
- Judge Wolff had sealed bills of particulars and 404(b) notices; later unsealed portions and continued a sealing protocol based on concerns about fair trial.
- Relators (Vindicator Printing Co. and WFMJ TV) sought access to records under Sup.R. 44–47 and related rules.
- Judge’s December 21, 2010 sealing order and August 24, 2011 sealing of a portion of the state’s memorandum were central to the dispute.
- Indictment later dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011; sealing issues persisted post-dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relators are entitled to unseal the records under Sup.R. 44–47 | Relators rely on presumption of openness for case documents. | Judge balanced fair-trial concerns and sealing was permissible. | Yes; mandamus required unsealing where presumption not overcome. |
| Whether bills of particulars and memorandum are case documents entitled to public access | Records were submitted to court and filed, not exempt. | Sealed as discovery/work product and not used in decision. | Yes; records qualify for public access presumption under Sup.R. 45(A). |
| Whether the sealing protocol and post-disclosure sealing violated Sup.R. 45(E) | Sealings were improper because not supported by clear and convincing evidence of adverse impact. | Sealings were justified by potential impact on fair trial. | Sealing protocol improper; not shown to overcome presumption. |
| Whether post-dismissal sealing could be sustained | Remains inappropriate after dismissal; public records should stay open. | Privacy and ongoing investigation interests weigh in. | Post-dismissal sealing not justified; records must be unsealed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 101 Ohio St.3d 382 (2004-Ohio-1581) (constitutional/public-records rights; openness of judicial records)
- State ex rel. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., 73 Ohio St.3d 19 (1995) (public access to court records; media access)
- State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368 (2008-Ohio-2637) (statutory/public-records considerations)
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511 (2007-Ohio-4643) (mandamus access cases; presumption of openness)
- State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (2011-Ohio-625) (public-records under Sup.R. framework; mootness avoidance)