SUMMER ANTHONY v. COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS
Case No. 2021-00069PQ
Court of Claims of Ohio
August 31, 2021
[Cite as Anthony v. Columbus City Schools, 2021-Ohio-3241.]
Judge Patrick E. Sheeran
I. Background
{¶2} On February 8, 2021, pursuant to
{¶3} On August 2, 2021, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R). The Special Master recommends denying CCC‘s motion to dismiss since the matter had been fully briefed and CCS‘s argument had been
The evidence before the court demonstrates that respondent keeps a data management system containing data responsive to the request, but the requested dataset cannot be produced without export for additional manual and electronic data manipulation not available in the database software. Accordingly, the special master recommends the court deny the claim for production of records. The special master further recommends the court find that respondent violated
R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable period of time. It is recommended the court order court costs be assessed equally between the parties.
(R&R, 9.)
{¶4} Anthony did not file timely written objections to the R&R. However, CCC has filed timely written objections to the R&R. Anthony has filed a timely written response to CCC‘s objections.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶5}
{¶6} Although CCC‘s objections and Anthony‘s response to the objections are timely filed, neither the objections nor the response complies with requirements contained in
{¶7} The procedures and time frames mandated by the General Assembly in
{¶8} Pursuant to
{¶9} CCS presents four objections for the Court‘s consideration:
- CCS objects to the Special Master‘s statement that CCS eventually denied Ms. Anthony‘s request because it was overbroad.
- CCS objects to the Special Master‘s finding that CCS was obligated to provide Ms. Anthony with its database maintenance and access information and a copy of its internal computer user manual.
- CCS objects to the Special Master‘s finding that CCS did not respond to Ms. Anthony‘s public records request within a reasonable period of time “[b]ased on the minimal time necessary to evaluate” whether SEMS could produce the requested records.
- CCS objects to the Special Master‘s reliance on State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, and Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ., Ct. of Cl. No. 2020-00308PQ, 2020-Ohio-4957, for
the proposition that CCS untimely responded to Ms. Anthony‘s public record request.
{¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court has held, “In order to support reversal of a judgment, the record must show affirmatively not only that error intervened but that such error was to the prejudice of the party seeking such reversal.” Smith v. Flesher, 12 Ohio St.2d 107, 233 N.E.2d 137 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. Accord Bonner v. Bonner, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-05-26, 2005-Ohio-6173, ¶ 18 (“[a] judgment by the trial court which is correct, but for a different reason, will be affirmed on appeal as there is no prejudice to the appellant“). The Special Master has recommended denying Anthony‘s claim for production of records. (R&R, 9.) Thus, the Special Master essentially has recommended that the Court rule in favor of CCC on the issue of production of records. The Special Master‘s recommendation on the claim of production of records therefore fails to prejudice CCC. In the first and second objections, CCC does not challenge the Special Master‘s recommended denial of Anthony‘s claim for production of records. Rather, CCC challenges some of the Special Master‘s statements in support of that recommendation. See Objections at 3 (Objection No. 2) (“In effect, the Special Master seems to suggest that CCS should have given Ms. Anthony a tutorial of the dataset capabilities of SEMS, or provide Ms. Anthony with CCS‘s 334-page internal user manual for retrieving information from SEMS. The Special Master assumes that Ms. Anthony was unfamiliar with the SEMS system. However, at all times, Ms. Anthony maintained that she was familiar with the SEMS system capabilities“).
{¶11} It is unnecessary for the Court to rewrite the Report and Recommendation when (1) the Special Master‘s recommendation on the issue of production of records causes CCC to suffer no prejudice, (2) certain statements in support of the recommendation may have been misinterpreted by CCC, and (3) some misinterpreted statements may be dicta. See Gerhold v. Papathanasion, 130 Ohio St. 342, 346, 199 N.E. 353 (1936) (“the law does not require the performance of a vain act“); Nelnet, Inc. v. Rauch, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-555, 2019-Ohio-561, ¶ 10, quoting Black‘s Law Dictionary 1240 (10th Ed.2014) (defining “obiter dictum” as “‘[a] judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential‘“).
{¶12} Objection No. 1 and Objection No. 2 are not well taken.
{¶13} CCC‘s remaining objections concern whether the Special Master prejudicially erred (1) when the Special Master concluded that CCC violated
{¶14} Pursuant to
If a requester makes an ambiguous or overly broad request or has difficulty in making a request for copies or inspection of public records under this section such that the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record cannot reasonably identify what public records are being requested, the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record may deny the request but shall provide the requester with an opportunity to revise the request by informing the requester of the manner in which records are maintained by the public office and accessed in the ordinary course of the public office‘s or person‘s duties.
Under
{¶15} In the R&R the Special Master states, “CCS does not deny that in the five weeks between Anthony‘s request and the filing of the complaint, it neither provided records nor offered the required ‘explanation including legal authority’ for why they were denied. On February 15, 2021, CCS denied the request based on non-existence of the requested SEMS output. (Response, Attachment 3.)” (R&R, 8.) CCC does not appear to dispute that it failed to respond to Anthony‘s request within five weeks, notwithstanding CCC‘s complaints about the legal authority cited by the Special Master to support the recommendation that CCC failed to timely respond. Under Ohio law whether a public office or a person responsible for a requested public record has promptly responded to a public-records request is based on the circumstances of each case. See State ex rel. Consumer News Servs. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 58, 2002-Ohio-5311, 776 N.E.2d 82, ¶ 37 (in customary usage the term “promptly” means without delay and with reasonable speed and its meaning depends largely on the facts in each case). Notably, the Ohio Supreme Court has remarked, “No pleading of too much expense, or too much time involved, or too much interference with normal duties, can be used by the respondent to evade the public‘s right to inspect and obtain a copy of public records within a reasonable time.” State ex rel. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. Andrews, 48 Ohio St.2d 283, 289, 358 N.E.2d 565 (1976). The Court concludes that the Special Master‘s determination as to the timeliness of CCC‘s response to Anthony‘s request is not error.
{¶16} With respect to the issue of court costs, the Ohio Supreme Court has explained, “By being involved in court proceedings, any litigant, by implied
{¶17} CCC‘s third and fourth objections are not well taken. Notably,
If the court of claims determines that the public office or person responsible for the public records denied the aggrieved person access to the public records in violation of [
R.C. 149.43(B) ] and if no appeal from the court‘s final order is taken under division (G) of this section, both of the following apply:(a) The public office or the person responsible for the public records shall permit the aggrieved person to inspect or receive copies of the public records that the court requires to be disclosed in its order.
(b) The aggrieved person shall be entitled to recover from the public office or person responsible for the public records the amount of the
Here, as Anthony has not prevailed on the issue of production of records,
III. Conclusion
{¶18} For reasons set forth above, the Court overrules CCC‘s objections and the Court adopts the Special Master‘s R&R.
PATRICK E. SHEERAN
Judge
SUMMER ANTHONY Requester v. COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS Respondent
Case No. 2021-00069PQ
Judge Patrick E. Sheeran
JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶19} For reasons set forth in the Decision filed herewith, the Court OVERRULES Respondent‘s objections. The Court adopts the Special Master‘s Report and Recommendation. Judgement is rendered, in part, in favor of Requester and rendered, in part, in favor of Respondent. Court costs are assessed equally to Requester and Respondent. Requester is entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that are incurred by her, but she is not entitled to recover attorney fees. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
Filed August 31, 2021
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/17/21
PATRICK E. SHEERAN
Judge