In the case of Gannett GP Media, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 2017-Ohio-4248, the court of claims made two findings regarding public records requests made by a media company that are instructive for public officials.
After concluding that “[a]ny and all communication issued or received by any employee of the [public office], regarding” a specific issue is so ambiguous or overly broad that the public office could not reasonably identify what public records are requested, the court of claims then went on to provide guidance as to what type of request regarding the communications of a public body it would consider proper. Specifically, the court of claims suggested that a public records request that identifies “a particular record authored by a named individual, specifying to whom it was sent and a time frame during which it was sent” would comply with the Ohio Public Records Act. Gannett at ¶ 14. Similarly, “a request for communications between a specific individual and a specific office within a reasonably defined time frame” would constitute a proper public records request. Gannett at ¶ 14.
The court of claims then went on to provide additional guidance regarding the public office’s obligation to provide a public requester the opportunity to revise a request. Specifically, R.C. 149.43(B)(2) provides that, if a requester “makes an ambiguous or overly broad request [* * *] such that the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record cannot reasonably identify what public records are being requested, the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record may deny the request but shall provide the requester with an opportunity to revise the request by informing the requester of the manner in which records are maintained by the public office and accessed in the ordinary course of the public office’s or person’s duties.” Gannett at ¶ 14.
The court of claims found that a public office meets its obligation under R.C. 149.43(B)(2) by: (1) inviting the requester to revise the request; (2) repeatedly offering to discuss the request to help the requester clarify the records sought; (3) advising the requester that it does not have the capacity to search its records using the terms given in the request; and (4) providing an example of a narrower request that resulted in the identification of records.
Regardless of whether all of the above steps are necessary, or even practical, for every ambiguous or overly broad public records request, this decision illustrates the necessity of communication and cooperation with public records requesters. As explained by the Ohio Attorney General in Ohio Sunshine Laws 2017 – An Open Government Resource Manual: “[T]he Public Records Act expressly promotes cooperation to clarify and narrow requests that are ambiguous or overly broad, in order to craft a successful, revised request.”
To read the decision, please click here.
To download a copy of the Sunshine Manual, 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.