In the case of Staton v. Timberlake, 2023-Ohio-1860, a special master recommended that the requester be awarded filing fees and costs pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b) when the village took seventy-two days to provide unredacted incident reports as requested pursuant to R.C. 149.43.
In this case, the requester argued that argued that (1) the village unreasonably delayed the production of five pages of unredacted incident reports by seventy-two days; (2) the requester was entitled to filing fees and costs under R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b) as the requester was aggrieved due to the village’s delay; and (3) the requester was entitled to damages and attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C) for the delay. In response, the village argued that (1) the village was justified in redacting the incident reports; (2) the requester was not aggrieved; and (3) damages and attorney fees are not available for cases brought under R.C. 2743.75. The special master agreed with the requester on the undue delay and filing fees and costs claims and with the village on the damages and attorney fees claim.
In support of its recommendation in support of the requester on the undue delay claim, the special master explained that the request was for five pages of a single type of record that should have been able to be taken care of quickly, rather than take more than two months. The special master further explained that incident reports are subject to immediate production and a two-month delay is far from immediate.
In support of its recommendation in support of the requester on the filing fees and costs claim, the special master explained that the requester was aggrieved due to the village’s undue delay.
In support of its recommendation in support of the village on the damages and attorney fees claim, the special master explained that the case was brought under R.C. 2743.75 and therefore damages and attorney fees are inapplicable.
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.