81 Ohio St. 3d 1234 | Ohio | 1998
An award of attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 149.43 is intended to reimburse a party for the successful prosecution of a mandamus action necessary to obtain the disclosure of a public record. We have held that an award of attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 149.43 is punitive in nature. State ex rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. Whalen (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 99, 100, 554 N.E.2d 1321, 1322. Consequently, the party against whom an award of fees is assessed should be responsible for those fees incurred only as a direct result of that party’s failure to produce the public record.
Gannett and Warren Newspapers submitted fee bills for work performed outside the prosecution of the mandamus action against respondent Jim Petro. Both Gannett and Warren Newspapers submitted fee bills for their work related to the prohibition action filed by Petro against the MVSD Court of Jurisdiction, a case in which neither one was a party; Both Gannett and Warren Newspapers also submitted fee bills for work performed in the mandamus action related to claims against the MVSD Court of Jurisdiction only. Although these fees relate to the efforts of Gannett and Warren Newspapers to obtain the public records, they are not directly related to the prosecution of the mandamus action against Petro.
The fees incurred by Gannett and Warren Newspapers during the jurisdictional dispute between Petro and MVSD Court of Jurisdiction should not be assessed against Petro despite Gannett’s and Warren Newspapers’ characterizing the fees
Although Gannett and Warren Newspapers are entitled to reimbursement for attorney fees, the statute does not provide authority for a court to award reimbursement for fees related to every effort.to obtain the public records. The statute provides only for attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of a mandamus action necessary to obtain disclosure of the public records. Fees incurred as a result of other efforts to obtain the same records, not related to the mandamus action against Petro, should be excluded from the award.
The bills and documentation submitted by relators in support of their requests for attorney fees do not differentiate between the work performed in the mandamus action related to claims against the MVSD Court of Jurisdiction and prosecution of the action against Petro. Therefore, we order relators to submit additional evidence within ten days of the date of this opinion that categorizes- and separates the work performed with respect to the action against Petro only in accordance with our discussion above. Respondent Petro shall have ten days from the date the additional evidence is filed to respond.
Judgment accordingly.