Case Title: J & C Marketing, LLC v. McGinty

Citation: 2015-Ohio-1310

Docket Number: 2013-1963

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as J & C Marketing, L.L.C. v. McGinty, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1310, 2015-Ohio-
1310.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-1310 
J & C MARKETING, L.L.C., APPELLEE, ET AL., v. MCGINTY, PROS. ATTY., 
APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as J & C Marketing, L.L.C. v. McGinty,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1310.] 
The law-enforcement investigatory privilege is not absolute—The interests of law 
enforcement in keeping the information obtained in a law-enforcement 
investigation confidential must be weighed against the needs of a civil 
litigant who requests the information in discovery. 
(No. 2013-1963—Submitted September 10, 2014—Decided April 7, 2015.) 
APPEAL by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 99676, 2013-Ohio-4805. 
_______________________ 
KENNEDY, J. 
{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from the Eighth District Court of 
Appeals, we consider whether information related to a criminal law-enforcement 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
investigation is absolutely privileged against disclosure in a civil suit brought by 
the alleged target of the criminal investigation.  Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 
Attorney Timothy J. McGinty appeals from a judgment affirming in part the trial 
court’s order compelling him to produce in discovery in a civil action certain 
information related to a criminal law-enforcement investigation. 
{¶ 2} We hold that the law-enforcement investigatory privilege is not 
absolute, and we reaffirm the validity of the balancing test we adopted in 
Henneman v. Toledo, 35 Ohio St.3d 241, 245, 520 N.E.2d 207 (1988), for 
weighing the interests of law enforcement in keeping the information confidential 
against the needs of a civil litigant who requests the information in discovery.  We 
therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 3} Appellee, J & C Marketing, L.L.C., owns two Internet sweepstakes 
cafés called “Sweepstakes Club” in Cuyahoga County, and the cafés purported to 
sell Internet access at the rate of $1.00 per four minutes of use and to give free 
electronic promotional sweepstakes entries to customers based on the number of 
minutes they purchase.  J & C Marketing claimed that no purchase was necessary 
to enter the sweepstakes and that upon request, the cafés would provide a free 
entry in the sweepstakes.  Customers could then use a café’s computer terminals 
to play games to reveal the results of their sweepstakes entries.  Winning entries 
could be redeemed for cash or more Internet-access time. 
{¶ 4} At some point, law-enforcement officials in Cuyahoga County began 
investigating whether Internet sweepstakes cafés in fact promote illegal gambling.  
Undercover officers visited Internet sweepstakes cafés throughout the county and 
summarized their findings in reports that reveal the identities of the officers and 
potential sources of information, the date and time surveillance occurred at a 
particular café, and the techniques and procedures used to conduct the 
investigation. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 5} Based on these investigations, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury 
returned an indictment on May 30, 2012, against ten individuals and seven 
companies, alleging that they had used an Internet gambling system known as 
“VS2” to conceal illegal gambling by presenting it as an Internet sweepstakes. 
{¶ 6} That same day, the Cuyahoga County prosecuting attorney mailed 
letters to J & C Marketing and various other proprietors of Internet sweepstakes 
cafés that had not used the VS2 software and threatened criminal prosecution if 
they did not immediately stop running the sweepstakes.  To avoid possible 
indictment, appellee and other owners of Internet-sweepstakes cafés closed their 
businesses. 
{¶ 7} On June 4, 2012, after closing both of its Internet sweepstakes cafés, 
J & C Marketing filed this action for a declaratory judgment, a temporary 
restraining order, and temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit the 
Cuyahoga County prosecuting attorney from enforcing gambling laws against it 
with respect to Internet sweepstakes.  See Peltz v. S. Euclid, 11 Ohio St.2d 128, 
228 N.E.2d 320 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus (a party threatened with 
criminal penalties if he proceeds to act has standing to test the validity of the law 
criminalizing the act).  Various other operators of Internet sweepstakes cafés that 
received similar cease-and-desist letters intervened, but they are not parties here. 
{¶ 8} Appellee insisted that payment to play its Internet sweepstakes 
games was not required.  Therefore, appellee asserted, its business did not 
promote gambling as defined in Fed. Communications Comm. v. Am. 
Broadcasting Co., Inc., 347 U.S. 284, 74 S.Ct. 593, 98 L.Ed. 699 (1954), which 
held that gambling is the union of chance, prize, and consideration, id. at 290.  
Appellee said that because it did not require customers to pay to enter the 
sweepstakes, its business did not violate the law. 
{¶ 9} The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and made 
preliminary findings that the Internet sweepstakes cafés were not the subject of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
pending criminal case and did not promote illegal gambling.  J & C Marketing 
then sought to compel discovery of records and information related to the ongoing 
criminal investigation of Internet sweepstakes cafés in Cuyahoga County.  In its 
discovery requests, through depositions, requests for production of documents, 
requests for admission, and interrogatories, appellee sought to obtain the evidence 
that the prosecuting attorney alleged showed that appellee had received 
consideration from sweepstakes customers.  The prosecuting attorney objected to 
these requests, asserting the attorney-work-product privilege, deliberative-process 
privilege, and law-enforcement investigatory privilege. 
{¶ 10} The trial court conducted an in camera inspection of the documents 
that J & C Marketing sought, and it reviewed the propounded interrogatories.  It 
ordered the prosecuting attorney to produce investigative reports compiled by 
undercover officers, e-mail exchanges between the prosecuting attorney’s office 
and investigators, and answers to interrogatories requiring the disclosure of 
confidential information about ongoing criminal investigations. 
{¶ 11} The prosecuting attorney filed an interlocutory appeal.  The Eighth 
District Court of Appeals reviewed the requested material, balanced the 
competing interests of J & C Marketing and the prosecuting attorney, and 
affirmed in part and reversed in part the ruling of the trial court.  It recognized the 
existence of the law-enforcement investigatory privilege but held that reports 
prepared during the undercover investigation of the Internet sweepstakes cafés 
were discoverable because they “are directly relevant to the alleged conduct of the 
internet sweepstakes cafés involved in this case because any factual disputes 
regarding the nature of their business must necessarily be resolved prior to the 
ultimate resolution of the legal question at the heart of this declaratory judgment 
action.”  2013-Ohio-4805, 4 N.E.3d 1069, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.). 
{¶ 12} The court of appeals directed the trial court to redact the names of 
the undercover officers when the reports were produced.  Nonetheless, it ordered 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
the prosecuting attorney to answer interrogatories regarding witnesses and 
evidence intended to be presented at trial despite recognizing that this ruling could 
result in revealing the identity of undercover officers. 
{¶ 13} But the appellate court held that e-mails between the prosecuting 
attorney’s office and criminal investigators were protected by the law-
enforcement investigatory privilege and the attorney-work-product privilege. 
{¶ 14} The prosecuting attorney appealed to this court, and we accepted 
for review his one proposition of law: “Records and information generated during 
the course of an open and ongoing undercover criminal investigation are not 
subject to disclosure based on the law enforcement investigatory privilege.” 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 15} The prosecuting attorney alleges that the court of appeals erred in 
balancing the competing interests involved here because an absolute privilege 
protected the information at issue.  Whether the information was protected by an 
absolute privilege is a question of law, which we review de novo. 
{¶ 16} We begin our analysis with Civ.R. 26(B), which states:  
 
Unless otherwise ordered by the court in accordance with 
these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:   
(1) In General.  Parties may obtain discovery regarding any 
matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter 
involved in the pending action * * *. 
 
(Italics sic.)   
{¶ 17} The common law recognizes a qualified privilege for law-
enforcement 
investigatory 
information, 
including 
confidential 
sources, 
surveillance information, and law-enforcement techniques and procedures.  See, 
e.g., In re New York City, 607 F.3d 923, 941 (2d Cir.2010); Puerto Rico v. United 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
States, 490 F.3d 50, 64 (1st Cir.2007); In re United State Dept. of Homeland Sec., 
459 F.3d 565, 570 (5th Cir.2006); Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 
1122, 1124 (7th Cir.1997) (the law-enforcement investigatory privilege is a 
“judge-fashioned evidentiary privilege”). 
{¶ 18} However, the privilege is not absolute: it is limited by “the 
fundamental requirements of fairness,” so that when the privileged information 
“is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair 
determination of a cause, the privilege must give way.”  Roviaro v. United States, 
353 U.S. 53, 60-61, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957).  A strong presumption 
militates against lifting the privilege.  In re New York City at 929.  Plaintiffs may 
obtain law-enforcement investigatory material only upon showing a “compelling 
need.”  Id. 
{¶ 19} Therefore, courts have applied a balancing test to determine 
whether the privilege applies.  In re New York City at 945; Black v. Sheraton 
Corp. of Am., 564 F.2d 531, 545 (D.C.Cir.1977); 26A Wright and Miller, Federal 
Practice and Procedure, Section 5681 (1992).  In Henneman, 35 Ohio St.3d 241, 
520 N.E.2d 207, we weighed the legitimate public interest in the confidentiality of 
the information obtained in a police department’s internal-affairs investigation 
against the needs of a litigant to obtain evidence in support of a nonfrivolous 
cause of action.  Id. at 242.  With regard to the claims brought under federal law, 
we applied the factors delineated in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 
(E.D.Pa.1973): 
 
(1) [T]he extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental 
processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government 
information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given 
information of having their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to 
which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the 
information sought is factual data or evaluative summary; (5) 
whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential 
defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably 
likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the 
police investigation has been completed; (7) whether any 
intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may 
arise from the investigation; (8) whether the plaintiff's suit is non-
frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the information 
sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; 
and (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's 
case. 
 
Id. at 344.  In Henneman, we affirmed the judgment of a court of appeals that 
ordered 
production 
of 
police 
department 
internal-affairs-investigation 
information, but we also acknowledged that “the confidentiality of such 
information often serves a legitimate interest, particularly in an ongoing criminal 
investigation.”  Id. at 243.  We later noted that the Frankenhauser factors for 
evaluating discovery issues extended beyond claims brought under federal law 
and beyond cases related to information obtained in internal-affairs investigations.  
State ex rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. Whalen, 48 Ohio St.3d 41, 549 N.E.2d 167 
(1990). 
{¶ 20} The interests of both parties are significant here.  The prosecuting 
attorney must protect the safety of informants and others identified in the 
investigation, safeguard the integrity of his investigative processes, and guard 
against nuisance lawsuits that are brought merely to gain access to investigative 
information.  But appellee’s interests in obtaining discovery are also strong, 
because by issuing the cease-and-desist letter, the prosecuting attorney in effect 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
shut down appellee’s business, even though the business had never even been 
charged with violating the law.  Appropriately, the court of appeals carefully 
balanced these interests by applying the Frankenhauser factors. 
{¶ 21} In conducting its review, the court of appeals applied both Civ.R. 
26(B)(1) and the Frankenhauser factors adopted in Henneman.  It acknowledged 
the “sweeping implications of this case,” 2013-Ohio-4805, 4 N.E.3d 1063, ¶ 5, 
and carefully examined each requested item.  The court ordered factual 
information released, id. at ¶ 25, 27, but reversed the trial court’s order to the 
extent necessary to protect “internal communications or investigative decisions” 
that lacked factual content, id. at ¶ 26, 28-31.  Because information related to a 
law-enforcement investigation is not entitled to absolute privilege, the court of 
appeals did not err in determining that a balancing test was required. 
{¶ 22} The prosecuting attorney’s proposition of law that an absolute 
privilege protects open criminal law-enforcement investigatory files from civil 
discovery in a civil suit against his office simply has no support in the law.  We 
reaffirm Henneman’s holding that information related to a law-enforcement 
investigation is protected from disclosure in civil litigation unless the party 
seeking discovery demonstrates that it has a compelling need for the information 
and that that need outweighs the public’s interest in keeping the information 
confidential.  The court of appeals determined, after applying our precedent, that 
J & C Marketing’s need for some of the investigatory material outweighed the 
law-enforcement interest in the confidentiality of that information.  We reject the 
prosecuting attorney’s proposition of law. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 23} Based on the foregoing, we hold that the law-enforcement 
investigatory privilege is not absolute, and we reaffirm the validity of the 
balancing test we adopted in Henneman, 35 Ohio St.3d 241, 520 N.E.2d 207, for 
weighing the interests of law enforcement against the needs of a civil litigant who 
January Term, 2015 
 
9
requests the information in discovery.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 
concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 
___________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent. 
{¶ 25} Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Timothy J. McGinty 
appeals from a judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirming the 
trial court’s order compelling the state to produce certain confidential law-
enforcement investigatory records in response to a discovery request filed by J & 
C Marketing, L.L.C., which had filed a declaratory judgment action in Cuyahoga 
Common Pleas Court case No. CV-12-784234 seeking a declaration that its 
Internet sweepstakes cafés do not promote illegal gambling. 
{¶ 26} At issue in this case is the law-enforcement investigatory privilege, 
a qualified executive privilege that protects information from discovery in civil 
litigation when its disclosure would reveal confidential law-enforcement 
techniques and procedures, undermine the confidentiality of sources and 
undercover officers, or impair the ability of law enforcement to conduct 
undercover investigations.  See generally Henneman v. Toledo, 35 Ohio St.3d 
241, 245-246, 520 N.E.2d 207 (1988); Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-
61, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Puerto Rico v. United States, 490 F.3d 
50, 64 (1st Cir.2007). 
{¶ 27} In my view, because law-enforcement investigatory records are 
confidential for the same reasons that grand jury proceedings are secret, a civil 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10
litigant seeking to overcome this privilege must demonstrate that it has a 
particularized need for information related to a criminal investigation, that the 
ends of justice require disclosure to ensure the litigant a fair trial, and that its need 
for discovery outweighs the public interest in confidentiality. 
{¶ 28} Here, J & C Marketing, along with other Internet café owners who 
are not parties to this appeal, sought information from law enforcement compiled 
during an ongoing criminal investigation, but it did not demonstrate that it has a 
particularized need for this information, that the ends of justice require disclosure, 
or that its interest in discovery outweighs the public interest in the continued 
confidentiality of the information. 
{¶ 29} Accordingly, because J & C Marketing failed to prove entitlement 
to these documents and records, I would reverse the judgment of the appellate 
court. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 30} Law-enforcement officials in Cuyahoga County conducted 
undercover investigations to determine whether Internet sweepstakes cafés 
promoted illegal gambling, and based on those investigations, the Cuyahoga 
County Grand Jury indicted ten individuals and seven companies on May 30, 
2012, alleging that they used an Internet gambling system known as “VS2” to 
conceal illegal gambling by presenting it as an Internet sweepstakes.  That same 
day, the prosecuting attorney for Cuyahoga County mailed letters to J & C 
Marketing and other owners of Internet sweepstakes cafés stating that if they did 
not immediately cease and desist running the sweepstakes, they would be subject 
to criminal prosecution. 
{¶ 31} J & C Marketing sought a declaratory judgment, a temporary 
restraining order, and temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit the 
prosecutor from enforcing gambling laws against it.  Other operators who 
received cease and desist letters intervened. 
January Term, 2015 
 
11
{¶ 32} In the course of that litigation, J & C Marketing sought to compel 
the discovery of records and information related to the ongoing criminal 
investigation of Internet sweepstakes cafés in Cuyahoga County.  In these records, 
undercover officers documented their visits to Internet sweepstakes cafés 
throughout the county and summarized their findings in reports that reveal the 
identities of the officers and potential sources of information, the date and time 
surveillance occurred at a particular café, and the techniques and procedures used 
to conduct the investigation.  It is undisputed that this information and these 
records are in the nature of law-enforcement investigatory materials. 
{¶ 33} The trial court nonetheless ordered the prosecuting attorney to 
produce the investigative reports compiled by undercover officers, e-mail 
exchanges between the prosecuting attorney’s office and investigators, and 
answers to interrogatories requiring the disclosure of confidential information 
about ongoing criminal investigations. 
{¶ 34} The prosecutor filed an interlocutory appeal from the order to 
produce.  The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, recognizing 
the existence of the law-enforcement investigatory privilege, but holding that the 
reports prepared during the undercover investigation of the Internet sweepstakes 
cafés were discoverable, because “[t]hese reports are directly relevant to the 
alleged conduct of the internet sweepstakes cafés involved in this case because 
any factual disputes regarding the nature of their business must necessarily be 
resolved prior to the ultimate resolution of the legal question at the heart of this 
declaratory judgment action.”  2013-Ohio-4805, 4 N.E.3d 1063, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.).  
However, the appellate court determined that e-mails between the prosecuting 
attorney’s office and criminal investigators were protected by the law-
enforcement investigatory privilege and the attorney work-product privilege.  It 
further directed the trial court to redact the names of the undercover officers when 
the reports were produced.  Nonetheless, the court of appeals ordered the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12
prosecuting attorney to answer interrogatories regarding witnesses and evidence 
the state intended to present at trial, despite its recognition that this could require 
identification of undercover officers. 
{¶ 35} The prosecutor appealed to this court, and we accepted one 
proposition of law for review: “Records and information generated during the 
course of an open and ongoing undercover criminal investigation are not subject 
to disclosure based on the law enforcement investigatory privilege.” 
The Law Enforcement Investigatory Privilege 
{¶ 36} Ohio has long recognized a qualified executive privilege for law-
enforcement 
investigatory 
information, 
including 
confidential 
sources, 
surveillance information, and law-enforcement techniques and procedures.  E.g., 
State v. Beck, 175 Ohio St. 73, 191 N.E.2d 825 (1963), reversed on other grounds 
by Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964) (confidential 
informants); State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 74, 75, 446 N.E.2d 779 (1983) 
(same); Henneman v. Toledo, 35 Ohio St.3d 241, 520 N.E.2d 207 (1988) (records 
and information compiled by an internal affairs division of a police department); 
State ex rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. Whalen, 48 Ohio St.3d 41, 549 N.E.2d 167 (1990) 
(records related to an ongoing investigation); State v. Brown, 64 Ohio St.3d 649, 
653, 597 N.E.2d 510 (1992) (confidential informants). 
{¶ 37} Our decisions have applied a balancing test to determine whether a 
litigant’s need for discovery of confidential law-enforcement information 
outweighs the public interest in its confidentiality.  Multimedia, Inc. at 41; Brown 
at 653; Henneman at 246.  But we have not yet specifically addressed the burden 
of proof of a civil litigant seeking to obtain confidential law-enforcement 
investigatory records related to an ongoing investigation.  Although the majority 
borrows the “compelling need” standard from In re New York City, 607 F.3d 923 
(2d Cir.2010), in my view, we should examine existing Ohio law. 
January Term, 2015 
 
13
{¶ 38} The confidential nature of a law-enforcement investigation is 
similar to the need for secrecy in a grand jury proceeding.  And, in grand jury 
matters, there is a high standard for obtaining information that has been presented 
to a grand jury.  As we explained in State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-
Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 141: 
 
“Grand jury proceedings are secret, and an accused is not 
entitled to inspect grand jury transcripts either before or during 
trial unless the ends of justice require it and there is a showing by 
the defense that a particularized need for disclosure exists which 
outweighs the need for secrecy.” State v. Greer (1981), 66 Ohio 
St.2d 139, 20 O.O.3d 157, 420 N.E.2d 982, paragraph two of the 
syllabus.  A particularized need is established “when the 
circumstances reveal a probability that the failure to provide the 
grand jury testimony will deny the defendant a fair trial.” State v. 
Sellards (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 173, 17 OBR 410, 478 N.E.2d 
781. 
 
{¶ 39} The analogy is compelling. 
{¶ 40} Because the witnesses who would be protected by the law-
enforcement investigatory privilege are the same individuals who would be called 
to testify before a grand jury, and because of the confidential nature of law-
enforcement investigations, the privilege is necessary to protect this information 
and these records from discovery. 
{¶ 41} Thus, in my view, information protected by the law-enforcement 
investigatory privilege should be protected from disclosure in civil litigation 
unless the party seeking discovery demonstrates a particularized need for the 
information, that the ends of justice require disclosure to ensure a fair trial, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14
that the need for discovery outweighs the public interest in confidentiality.  A trial 
court should determine, in an in camera proceeding, whether the litigant can 
demonstrate a particularized need for the material that outweighs the public 
interest in the confidentiality of that information. 
{¶ 42} Here, the Cuyahoga County prosecutor has demonstrated that J & 
C Marketing is seeking discovery of information that is protected by the law-
enforcement investigatory privilege. 
{¶ 43} The burden therefore should have shifted to J & C Marketing to 
show that it has a particularized need for this privileged information, that 
disclosure is necessary to meet the ends of justice and ensure a fair trial, and that 
its interest in discovery outweighs the public interest in keeping confidential 
techniques, procedures, identities, and sources confidential.  However, no 
showing had been made in the record before us that J & C Marketing has a need 
for the law-enforcement investigatory records and information sought in 
discovery to ensure a fair trial on the question regarding whether or not Internet 
sweepstakes constitute illegal gambling.  The fact that Internet sweepstakes cafés 
have been investigated by police is not relevant to deciding whether they engage 
in illegal gambling.  And to the extent that J & C Marketing seeks information 
regarding how its own cafés work in order to gauge their legality, that information 
is readily available from other sources, including its own employees and 
customers. 
{¶ 44} In addition, an inference can be drawn that if J & C Marketing had 
a need for these documents and records, it would have filed a brief in this court.  
But it did not do so.  And, significantly, J & C Marketing voluntarily dismissed its 
claim in case No. CV-12-784234, its declaratory judgment action, on January 9, 
2014.  Other Internet café owners who had intervened in this action have also 
dismissed their claims. 
January Term, 2015 
 
15
{¶ 45} Weighed against this minimal interest in disclosure is the 
prosecutor’s significant interest in precluding release of information regarding 
confidential law-enforcement techniques, procedures, identities, and sources, 
which relate not only to ongoing criminal investigations involving this Internet 
sweepstakes café owner, but also to other cases not currently pending before the 
court.  At the time of the discovery requests, the police investigations remained 
ongoing, and even now, the public retains a substantial interest in preserving the 
integrity of undercover operations and protecting the confidentiality and safety of 
undercover officers, informants, and witnesses. 
{¶ 46} Although the court of appeals required redaction of the names of 
undercover agents, the investigatory reports nonetheless provide detailed 
information about the undercover investigations, and even if redacted, they still 
reveal the techniques and procedures used to conduct the undercover operations 
and potentially could lead to the disclosure of the identities of undercover officers 
and confidential sources.  See New York City, 607 F.3d at 944 (“Pulling any 
individual ‘thread’ of an undercover operation may unravel the entire ‘fabric’ that 
could lead to identifying an undercover officer”). 
{¶ 47} Revealing confidential information has great potential to 
compromise ongoing and future investigations, and any need that J & C 
Marketing may have in its disclosure does not outweigh the public’s interest in 
maintaining its confidentiality. 
{¶ 48} Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the appellate court 
and prohibit discovery of any of the confidential law-enforcement investigatory 
materials sought in this case. 
________________ 
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brian 
R. Gutkoski and Charles E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for 
appellant. 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

16