In the case of State ex rel. Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 2017-Ohio-300, an Ohio appellate court denied a law firm’s request for statutory damages in a public records case because “the City did provide the records within a reasonable time” and never indicated that the records would not be produced. Patituce at ¶ 10.
In this case, the law firm submitted two public records requests to the city seeking voluminous police records. “Thereafter, the Law Firm sought updates from the City on the status of its records requests on July 15, 2016, July 28, 2016, August 4, 2016, and August 5, 2016.” On July 6, 2016, the city advised the law firm that it would produce the records. The “City did not reiterate its July 6th promise in response to the Law Firm’s successive requests for status updates.” Patituce at ¶ 10. As a result, the law firm filed a mandamus action asserting that the city did not produce the records within a reasonable period of time.
“On August 30, 2016, the City produced documents in response to the second request and produced the remaining documents on September 14, 2016.” Patituce at ¶ 2. While the production of public records may end the dispute over whether the public records must be produced, the law firm asserted that it should be awarded statutory damages because the city did not produce the records within a reasonable period of time.
Statutory damages may be awarded in a public records case if a court determines that the public office failed to promptly prepare and make available the public records. While there is no set deadline by which a public office must respond to a records request, a public office must generally respond within a reasonable period of time. The “determination of what is ‘reasonable’ depends upon all the pertinent facts and circumstances.” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8195, ¶ 23.
Weighing the pertinent facts and circumstances in this case, the Ohio appellate court determined that “the City did provide the records within a reasonable time” because of the voluminous nature of the requests and because the requested records contained information requiring redactions. Patituce at ¶ 10. And, while the city did not respond to the law firm’s successive requests for status updates, the appellate court noted that the city at least acknowledged receipt of the requests and never indicated that it intended to refuse to provide the records.
While the city avoided the imposition of statutory damages in this case, one cannot help but believe that the whole mess could have been avoided in the first place. The law firm made repeated requests for status updates regarding the public records requests. Apart from acknowledging receipt of the requests, the city did little to respond to these requests. While the city has no obligation under the Ohio Public Records Act to provide regular status updates, providing such updates might have had the practical effect of preventing litigation. The cost of sending an email (it’s free afterall!) certainly outweighs the cost of a lawsuit from a records requester who feels left in the dark.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
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.