Turner v. Lyndhurst
2017 Ohio 7129
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Requester Elaine Turner sought public records from the City of Lyndhurst (Mayor’s Office) about 2016 expenditures: the mayor’s 2016 expense report, animal-control accounts payable, and records for Permanent Improvement Fund 410.
- Turner initially made a voicemail/public-records inquiry; Law Director Paul Murphy asked for clarification because the request was vague and could involve many documents.
- Murphy provided meeting minutes, an ordinance, a 2015 contract, and later (Jan. 13) two electronic reports: a 20‑page Expense Account Report and a 257‑page Expense Audit Trail Report (277 pages total). He stated this completed the City’s response.
- Turner filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging the City denied access to records. The City moved to dismiss, arguing it had produced responsive records, Turner’s requests were for information or would require creation of new records, and some requests were overly broad.
- The Special Master found most claims moot because the City produced the reports before the suit; he held the reports satisfied the mayoral expense request, ordered production of specific animal-control invoices, and dismissed the fund-410 claim as overly broad and ambiguous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City violated R.C. 149.43(B) by withholding the mayor’s 2016 expense report | Turner: The City failed to provide the mayor’s detailed 2016 expense report (including items beyond salary) | City: Provided expense reports that contain responsive information; no separate mayor report exists to be produced | Held: Reports produced rendered claim moot; dismissal granted as to mayor report request |
| Whether the City must produce accounts payable documents for the animal-control budget | Turner: Requested accounts payable documents relating to the $34,000 animal-control budget | City: Provided audit trail but argued further production would require creating new records or was unnecessary | Held: Audit trail partially responsive; Turner entitled to copies of the 2016 invoices listed in the Expense Audit Trail Report (City must produce them) |
| Whether Turner’s request for “any public document regarding special fund 410” was valid | Turner: Seeks any documents regarding Fund 410 expenditures (~$1,000,000) | City: Request is ambiguous/overbroad; City sought clarification and provided guidance and reports | Held: Request is overly broad and ambiguous; City’s denial was proper; dismissal granted as to Fund 410 request |
| Proper standard and remedy where records are produced before adjudication | Turner: Maintains denial claim despite production | City: Production moots the claim; only remaining issues are specific unproduced documents | Held: Where a public office produces responsive records pre-judgment, the claim is moot as to those records; limited relief awarded for outstanding specific invoices; filing fee awarded to Turner and court costs split |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (2013) (mandamus claims under R.C. 149.43(B) require proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168 (2011) (production of records before adjudication may render a public-records claim moot)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374 (1996) (Public Records Act must be construed liberally in favor of broad access)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. City of New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33 (2006) (public office not required to create new records in response to a request)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)