In the case of State ex rel. Pool v. Sheffield Lake, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1204, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the city made reasonable efforts to produce the requester’s documents when the city used a third-party vendor to search through the mirrored computer which determined files and email attachments were deleted, collected the email attachments from city employees, and produced memoranda and directives both within the department manual and outside the manual.
In this case, the requester argued that (1) the city did not do enough to locate electronic copies of the requested images, including not searching the printer memory and every computer that could contain the images; (2) the city did not search the city’s paper files for the requested memorandums; (3) the city owed statutory damages due to not providing the department manual, that contained requested memoranda or other directives, until six months after the request was made; (4) the city owed statutory damages due to taking eight months to produce the requested images; and (5) the city owed attorney’s fees under R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b) because the city did not completely respond to the requests, the city was three days late in meeting the city’s promised deadline, and the city acted in bad faith by refusing to turn over records until after the action was filed but before the court issued an order. In response, the city argued that (1) the city utilized a third-party vendor who determined that the images were not on the computer in question and the email attachments were deleted, but the city searched the recipients’ emails and provided the attachments; (2) the city provided the memorandum found and that an electronic search produced no additional memoranda or directives; (3) there was no reason the city would think responsive documents would be in the department manual; (4) the original request did not ask for native email files, and when the request was updated to include native email files, the city produced the documents within six weeks: and (5) R.C. 149(C)(3)(b)(i) does not provide attorney’s fees for failing to respond completely, the three day delay was a small fraction of the legal expenses the requester incurred rather than the 100% the requester asked for, and the requester did not produce evidence that the city acted in bad faith. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the city on the search and production claim, the statutory damages claim; and the attorney fees claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the city on the search and production claim, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the city’s efforts in recovering and providing the images were reasonable and the requester’s notion for what the city should be required to do is more than the law requires. The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that the requester did not show there were additional paper memoranda, and the produced memorandum indicates the city must have searched the paper files.
In support of its decision in favor of the city on the statutory damages claim, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that there was no reason to think responsive documents would be in the department manual, and therefore a six-month delay in producing the manual was reasonable. The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that the requester used the wrong time period, the requester did not argue the correct period of time was unreasonable, and in fact, the six-week period was reasonable.
In support of its decision in favor of the city on the attorney’s fees claim, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that attorney’s fees may be granted if a public office completely ignores a request, not when a public office does not respond completely to a request. The Ohio Supreme Court next explained that attorney-fee awards are discretionary and declined to award 100% of the requester’s fees for the small amount of fees incurred due to the three-day delay, as such an award would be disproportionate. The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that bad faith cannot be presumed only because a public office provided a record after a mandamus complaint is filed, some other evidence must be provided, and the requester failed to present any other evidence.
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.