In the case of State ex rel. Bristow v. Baxter, 2019-Ohio-214, an Ohio appellate court held that a public records requestor was entitled to statutory damages as the public office failed to make any response to the requestor for more than two and a half months.
In this case, the requestor made a total of 42 public records requests over a two-month period. But the public office never responded to any of these requests. After the requestor petitioned an Ohio appellate court to force the public office to respond to the requests, the public office still failed to respond until 22 days after the petition was filed. The public office eventually provided the requested public records with appropriate redactions and exemptions.
After receiving the requested records, the requestor sought statutory damages for the delay in responding to the public records request. The Ohio appellate court found that – regardless of the voluminous size of the requests – the over two and a half months of silence from the public office constituted a failure to respond “within a reasonable period of time.” State ex rel. Bristow v. Baxter, ¶ 37. Specifically, the Ohio appellate court found that the “delay of two and a half months before producing the records or in any way responding to [requestor’s] requests is unreasonable, and violates the mandate under R.C. 149.43(B)(1) that the records be promptly prepared.” State ex rel. Bristow v. Baxter, ¶ 41.
To read this case, 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.