In the case of State ex rel. Philbin v. Cleveland, 2017-Ohio-1031, an Ohio appellate court found that a “public office possesses the burden of proving that the records or redacted parts [of public records] are exempt from disclosure” and that courts will “resolve all doubts in favor of disclosure.” Philbin at ¶ 7.
This case involved multiple public records requests submitted to the City of Cleveland. The Ohio appellate court ordered the City of Cleveland to respond to the requestor’s allegations that it did not provide all of the requested records and that it improperly redacted the records actually provided. Because the City of Cleveland failed to respond to the court order, the Ohio appellate court ruled that the City of Cleveland “failed [its burden] to demonstrate that any of the released records were subject to redaction [and * * *] failed to demonstrate that all requested public records have been provided.” Philbin at ¶ 8. The appellate court then ordered the City of Cleveland to provide unredacted copies of all the requested public records since “any doubt must be resolved in favor of disclosure of public records.” Philbin at ¶ 8.
As this case demonstrates, the Ohio Public Records Act presumes and favors public access to government records. Public officials need to be aware of this fundamental principle when redacting public records as they will ultimately bear the burden of proving that the redactions are proper.
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.