In the case of Slattery v. Cleveland, 2018-Ohio-4591, the Court of Claims adopted a special master’s findings that a public records action filed after requested documents had been produced cannot be used to chastise or harass a public office – regardless of how untimely the records were produced.
As a general rule, a public records requestor can enforce a public records request either through (1) an action in mandamus with an appropriate court or (2) an expedited process through the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims allows for an injunction to require the public office to produce the public records and/or a financial sanction to recover the filing fee and costs incurred by the requestor in attempting to acquire public records.
In this case, the public office provided the public records requestor with the requested public records – albeit after 277 days. Despite receiving the records, the requestor sought financial sanctions due to the significant delay in producing the records. In response, the special master held that neither an injunction nor a financial sanction was appropriate given the fact that the requestor had already acquired the public records. The special master also noted that the requestor should have pursued the claim “earlier, when an expeditious and economical ruling could compel production” – not after the requestor already received the records. Slattery at ¶ 10.
Additionally, the special master refused to award financial sanctions as the special master believed the requestor filed the complaint in order to chastise the public office for its delay. Indeed, the special master cautioned the requestor that the special master “will consider early recommendation of dismissal of future complaints that expressly have no other purpose than to chastise a public office for untimeliness.” Slattery at ¶ 11.
This case reinforces the fact that public offices faced with public records requests may be held accountable for significant delays in responding to these requests. That being said, public offices may avoid such accountability by simply producing the records requested!
To read the decision of the Ohio Court of Claims, click here.
To read the report and recommendation of the special master, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.