THE STATE EX REL. THE TOLEDO BLADE COMPANY v. BOARD OF HANCOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
No. 97-1013
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Decided May 20, 1998.
82 Ohio St.3d 34 | 1998-Ohio-299
Submitted March 24, 1998.
IN MANDAMUS.
{¶ 1} In April 1995, Clifton E. Baxter filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that Hancock County and other parties had committed civil rights and additional violations against him. Baxter requested a judgment in excess of four million dollars and an order that the county implement training and supervision of sheriff‘s deputies and officers in thе areas of lawful arrest, search and seizure, and interrogation.
{¶ 2} In May 1997, respondent, Hancock County Board of County Commissioners (“board“), adopted a resolution that approved an agreement settling Baxter‘s suit. The board‘s resolution noted that the settlement agreement and its incorporated confidentiality provision resulted frоm negotiations among all of the parties to the federal case. The resolution referred to but did not desсribe the terms of the settlement agreement.
{¶ 3} According to relator, The Toledo Blade Company, a division of Blade Communications, Inc. (“The Blade“), one of its employees subsequently requested
{¶ 4} The Blade then filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to provide access to all records relating to the terms of the settlemеnt agreement. The Blade also requested attorney fees. After the board filed an answer, which asserted that Thе Blade had never specifically requested the settlement agreement, we granted an alternative writ. 79 Ohio St.3d 1486, 683 N.E.2d 789. In October 1997, we issued our decision in State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 134, 684 N.E.2d 1222, granting a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the board to provide access to the settlement agreement under Ohio‘s Public Records Act,
{¶ 5} The cause is now before this court upon the evidence submitted by the parties and The Blade‘s merit brief. The board did not file a brief.
Fritz Byers, for relator.
Robert A. Fry, Hancock County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
Baker & Hostetler LLP, David L. Mаrburger and Beth A. Brandon, urging issuance of the writ for amicus curiae, Ohio Coalition for Open Government.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} The Blade initially requested a writ of mandamus to compel the board to provide access to the settlement agreement. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with
{¶ 7} As The Blade concedеs, its mandamus claim is moot because the board has now given it a copy of the settlement agreement. State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 222, 685 N.E.2d 537. Therеfore, we deny the writ of mandamus based on mootness.
Request for Attorney Fees
{¶ 8} The Blade requests attorney fees. “A court may award attorney fees pursuant to
{¶ 9} The Blade satisfied the third and fourth Pennington requirements. It received access to the settlement agreement only after it filed this mandamus action.
{¶ 10} Further, the Blade has established the remaining Pennington requirements. Although the board presented evidence disputing the propriety of The Blade‘s request and the board‘s failure to comply with that request, even the board‘s clerk‘s affidavit states that The Blade requested “paperwork” on the settled case, which is broad enough to include the settlement agreement. See State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. Shirey (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 400, 401, 678 N.E.2d 557, 559 (”
{¶ 11} Under our unanimous holding in Findlay Publishing Co., 80 Ohio St.3d аt 139, 684 N.E.2d at 1226, The Blade is thus entitled to an award of attorney fees because it “has established a sufficient public benefit [by the provision of access to the requested settlement agreement], and the board failed to comрly with its records request for reasons that were unreasonable and unjustifiable.”
{¶ 12} Based on the foregoing, we award аttorney fees to The Blade, and order its counsel to submit a bill and documentation in support of attorney fees in accordance with DR 2-106(B).
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.