In the case of Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati, 2019-Ohio-1613, the Ohio Court of Claims adopted a special master’s recommendation finding that electronic “storage in a personal, privately-paid cell phone did not automatically exclude a text message” from the definition of a public record. Cincinnati Enquirer at ¶ 3.
In this case, an individual made a public records request seeking text messages between five city council members over a four-month period. The city denied the request arguing that the text messages “are not records of the City and are not kept by the City.” Cincinnati Enquirer at ¶ 2.
Although ultimately finding the public records request to be overly broad, the special master found that text messages on personal, privately-paid cell phones are not automatically disqualified as public records as long as the content of the text messages otherwise satisfy the definition of public records under R.C. 149.43.
To read court of claim’s adoption, 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.