Viola v. Cuyahoga Cty. Pros. Office, 2021 Ohio 4210

Requestor Anthony Viola sought emails from former assistant prosecutor Daniel Kasaris’ personal Yahoo account: (1) emails mentioning Viola, (2) emails mentioning Dawn Pasela, and (3) emails between Kasaris and government witness Kathryn Clover.
The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office said it did not maintain or search Kasaris’ Yahoo account, produced 572 pages of responsive emails from its official server (redacted for work product/grand-jury privileges), and denied possessing other responsive records.
Kasaris submitted an affidavit stating he used his employer’s account for office business, had no recollection of using his Yahoo for official duties, and that his search of the Yahoo account using Viola’s criteria found no CCPO-related emails; he acknowledged using an assistant-prosecutor title in his Yahoo signature for political promotion only.
The Court of Claims special master ordered preservation of potentially responsive Yahoo emails, reviewed the submissions, and concluded Viola failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecutor’s office violated the Public Records Act or that an in camera inspection was warranted.
The Court of Claims adopted the special master’s report and dismissed Viola’s complaint; the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Viola)	Defendant's Argument (Prosecutor's Office)	Held
Whether the court should order search/in camera inspection of Kasaris’ private Yahoo account for responsive records.	Kasaris used his private account for official business and emails with witness Kathryn Clover exist, so the office must search the private account or allow in camera review.	The office does not possess responsive records; Kasaris searched his Yahoo per the request and found none; no duty to search private accounts absent evidence records exist.	Court held Viola failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that responsive public records existed on the private account; no in camera search required.
Whether emails between a prosecutor and a government witness are necessarily official business (i.e., public records).	Such emails relate to prosecutions, a core prosecutor function, so they should be treatable as public records subject to disclosure.	Even if such messages can be public records in some contexts, Viola did not show these emails existed on the private account; the court need not decide the general legal question.	Court declined to decide the broad legal issue because the requested items were not shown to be "records" subject to disclosure; claim failed.

Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 170 N.E.3d 768 (Ohio 2020) (describes R.C. 2743.75 procedure and clarifies burdens in public-records-access proceedings)
State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 894 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio 2008) (discussion of when emails on private accounts may qualify as public records)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537, 905 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio 2009) (public office may establish by affidavit that all existing records have been provided)
State ex rel. Gooden v. Kagel, 138 Ohio St.3d 343, 6 N.E.3d 471 (Ohio 2014) (a public office has no duty to provide records it does not possess)
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139, 976 N.E.2d 877 (Ohio 2012) (requester’s speculation is insufficient to rebut affidavits that no records exist)
State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 163 Ohio St.3d 471, 171 N.E.3d 257 (Ohio 2020) (public office has no duty to produce nonexistent records)
State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 56, 123 N.E.3d 928 (Ohio 2018) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)