In the case of Burkons v. Beachwood, 2023-Ohio-1173, a special master recommended that (1) all of the requests for public records under R.C. 149.43 were either moot, as the city had provided documents under seal, or failed, as the requester did not provide any evidence that the requests were for records as defined by R.C. 149.011(G), and (2) the city was not entitled under R.C. 2743.75 to attorney fees for the work performed by the Law Director and Assistant Law Director.
In this case, the requester argued that (1) the city had not provided the requested records and (2) the Law Director and Assistant Law Director were in-house counsel and attorney fees cannot be recovered for services provided by in-house counsel for public records cases. In response, the city argued that (1) the requests were moot as the city provided the records under seal to the court and requester and the requester provided no evidence that the remaining request was for records as defined by R.C. 149.011(G); and (2) R.C. 2743.75 allows the recovery of attorney fees for in-house counsel. The special master agreed with the city on the records claim and with the requester on the attorney fees claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the city on the records claim, the special master explained that the city had provided copies of all responsive records except for a single redacted Facebook post. The special master further explained that the requester failed to provide any evidence to support the requester’s claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the of the requester on the attorney fees claim, the special master explained that the Law Director and Assistant Law Director are city officials, which makes the Law Director and Assistant Law Director in-house counsel and attorney’s fees may not be awarded to the city for either official’s work.
To read the special master’s report, 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.