Case Title: State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born

Citation: 2014-Ohio-3679

Docket Number: 2013-0596

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3679.] 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-3679 
THE STATE EX REL. PLUNDERBUND MEDIA, L.L.C., v.  
BORN, DIR. OF PUBLIC SAFETY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3679.] 
Mandamus—Public records—R.C. 149.43—Security records—Threats against the 
governor—Writ denied. 
(No. 2013-0596—Submitted May 27, 2014—Decided August 27, 2014.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We deny the request by relator, Plunderbund Media, L.L.C., for a 
writ of mandamus.  Plunderbund’s complaint sought the disclosure of records 
documenting threats against the governor that were kept by respondent, Thomas 
P. Charles, the former Director of Public Safety.1  Legal counsel for the 
                                          
 
1 The current Director of Public Safety is John Born, who became director on July 31, 2013, after 
the complaint in this matter was filed. Under Civ.R. 25(D)(1), Born has been automatically 
substituted as respondent in place of the former director, Thomas P. Charles.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Department of Public Safety refused to produce any records, even redacted 
records, based on R.C. 149.433.  That provision exempts “security records” from 
disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43 et seq.  Because any records 
of threats made to the governor are “security records” under R.C. 
149.433(A)(3)(a), they are not public records.  The director of Public Safety does 
not have a clear legal duty to produce the requested records to Plunderbund, and 
Plunderbund lacks a clear legal right to those documents.  We therefore deny the 
writ. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Plunderbund is a media company based in central Ohio that 
provides original reporting, analysis, and editorial commentary on Ohio politics.  
Born is the Director of Public Safety. 
{¶ 3} On August 14, 2012, Joseph Mismas, co-owner and managing 
editor of Plunderbund, sent a public-records request to the legal department of the 
Department of Public Safety, requesting that it provide the number of 
investigations the Highway Patrol had conducted regarding threats against the 
governor and a copy of the final version of the investigation report, but not the 
witness statements.  Mismas indicated that a single report, if available, setting 
forth the type of threat and whether it was credible or resulted in charges was 
acceptable. 
{¶ 4} Legal counsel for the department refused to produce any records, 
claiming, “Out of concern for the safety of public officials, * * * it has been 
determined that security records, such as detailed information on security, 
protective measures and procedures, personal threats and their analysis * * * are 
not public records under section 149.43 of the Revised Code.”  Legal counsel also 
stated that the department was withholding the records under R.C. 149.433(B). 
{¶ 5} Mismas followed up on September 21, 2012, with further e-mails 
indicating that Plunderbund wanted information only on closed investigations and 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
arguing that a closed investigation is not a security record.  Plunderbund 
requested, at a minimum, the cover sheet to each report indicating that a case was 
opened, the nature of the case, and the resolution, while acknowledging that 
information that might pose a security threat could be redacted.  Counsel for the 
department responded that security records are not limited to open investigations 
and that the requested documents would therefore be withheld under R.C. 
149.433.  Counsel followed up with an e-mail explaining that the department was 
relying on R.C. 149.433(A)(3)(a) and 149.433(B) to deny the request. 
{¶ 6} Plunderbund’s counsel wrote to the department on November 13, 
2012, arguing that some of the refused records would fall outside the security-
records exception of R.C. 149.433 and that some might also fall under R.C. 
149.43(A)(11) and therefore be amenable to redaction.  Counsel stated that 
Plunderbund was not requesting information about actions taken in response to a 
threat but information about the threat itself, e.g., a copy of a written threat or 
notes taken by a person who received a telephoned threat. 
{¶ 7} The department responded on December 14, 2012, stating that 
Plunderbund’s interpretation of the public-records law was “at odds with” the 
applicability of the statutes.  The department argued that a security record was any 
record that contained “information directly used for protecting or maintaining the 
security of a public office against attack, interference, or sabotage” and that 
because each of the requested records contained such information, they were 
security records and were not subject to disclosure.  The department also pointed 
out that the public-records law requires production only of records, not of 
information, such as the number of threats investigated.  The department again 
cited R.C. 149.433(A)(3)(a). 
{¶ 8} Plunderbund filed an action for a writ of mandamus to require the 
department to produce the requested records.  The department filed an answer and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The court issued an alternative writ, and 
the parties submitted evidence and briefs. 
{¶ 9} The parties jointly submitted an agreed statement of facts, and each 
separately filed additional evidence.  Plunderbund submitted an affidavit from 
Joseph Mismas, its co-owner and managing editor.  It also submitted an affidavit 
from its legal counsel with a 2006 bulletin from the Department of Administrative 
Services regarding the exceptions to public records in R.C. 149.433. 
{¶ 10} The department has moved to strike statements in the cover page to 
Plunderbund’s evidence, asserting that those statements are legal arguments and 
not evidence. 
{¶ 11} The department submitted affidavits of John Born; Paul Pride, 
superintendent of the Highway Patrol; Richard Baron, executive director of Ohio 
Homeland Security, a division of the Department of Public Safety; and Patrick 
Kellum, a staff lieutenant with the Patrol and a member of the governor’s security 
team. 
{¶ 12} Plunderbund has filed a motion to strike all the department’s 
affidavits, asserting that they are not relevant evidence, but are opinion, hearsay, 
and legal argument.  The department has responded to this motion. 
{¶ 13} In addition, Plunderbund has moved for in camera inspection of 
the documents, stating in part that evidence before the court demonstrates that the 
department is not acting in good faith.  The department responded that the court 
need not see the actual documents to decide the issues here. 
Analysis 
Motions to strike 
{¶ 14} Both the department and Plunderbund filed motions to strike 
various parts of the material submitted into the record.  We deny the parties’ 
motions.  However, we will consider as evidence only facts and any expert 
testimony submitted by the parties. 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
Mandamus 
{¶ 15} “Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with 
R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.”  State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for 
Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 
2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6; R.C. 149.43(C)(1).  Thus, mandamus is the 
appropriate remedy for Plunderbund to use here to obtain access to a public 
record. 
{¶ 16} Although “[w]e construe the Public Records Act liberally in favor 
of broad access and resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure of public records,” 
State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224, 2010-
Ohio-3288, 932 N.E.2d 327, ¶ 6, a relator still must establish entitlement to the 
requested extraordinary relief by clear and convincing evidence,  State ex rel. 
Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, 958 N.E.2d 1235, 
paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 17} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Plunderbund must establish 
a clear legal right to the requested relief and a clear legal duty on the part of the 
department to provide it.  State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-
Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6.  Plunderbund must prove that it is entitled to the 
writ by clear and convincing evidence.  Id. at ¶ 13. 
R.C. 149.433 
{¶ 18} If a record does not meet the definition of a public record, or falls 
within one of the exceptions to the law, the records custodian has no obligation to 
disclose the document.  R.C. 149.43(B) (“all public records responsive to the 
request shall be promptly prepared * * *”).  The department claims that the 
records requested by Plunderbund are “security records” as defined in R.C. 
149.433(A)(3) and thus are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records 
Act:  
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
A record kept by a public office that is a security record or 
an infrastructure record is not a public record under section 149.43 
of the Revised Code and is not subject to mandatory release or 
disclosure under that section. 
 
R.C. 149.433(B).  The department cites both R.C. 149.433(A)(3)(a) and (A)(3)(b) 
in support of its argument that the records documenting threats against the 
governor requested by Plunderbund are “security records.”  If the records fall 
under one or both of these subsections, they are security records and may be 
withheld by the department.  R.C. 149.433(A)(3) states:  
 
“Security record” means any of the following: 
(a) Any record that contains information directly used for 
protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against 
attack, interference, or sabotage; 
(b) Any record assembled, prepared, or maintained by a 
public office or public body to prevent, mitigate, or respond to acts 
of terrorism, including any of the following: 
(i) Those portions of records containing specific and unique 
vulnerability assessments or specific and unique response plans 
either of which is intended to prevent or mitigate acts of terrorism, 
and communication codes or deployment plans of law enforcement 
or emergency response personnel; 
(ii) 
Specific 
intelligence 
information 
and 
specific 
investigative records shared by federal and international law 
enforcement agencies with state and local law enforcement and 
public safety agencies; 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
(iii) National security records classified under federal 
executive order and not subject to public disclosure under federal 
law that are shared by federal agencies, and other records related to 
national security briefings to assist state and local government with 
domestic preparedness for acts of terrorism. 
(c) A school safety plan adopted pursuant to section 
3313.536 of the Revised Code. 
 
{¶ 19} Plunderbund argues that protecting a “public office,” as the term is 
used in R.C. 149.433(A)(3)(a), applies only to such things as the placement of 
cameras, blueprints of the building, or the scheduling of security personnel.  In 
other words, it covers records that are generated in the protection of physical 
facilities, not officials.  The department argues that the subsection is broader, 
allowing it to withhold records that might subject the governor to attack, 
interference, sabotage, or terrorism.  It asserts that protecting a “public office” 
includes protecting the officeholder. 
{¶ 20} Indeed, a public office cannot function without the employees and 
agents who work in that office, and records “directly used for protecting or 
maintaining the security of a public office” must inevitably include those that are 
directly used for protecting and maintaining the security of the employees and 
other officers of that office. 
{¶ 21} Therefore, a reasonable reading of R.C. 149.433(A)(3)(a) is that 
records that contain information directly used to protect and maintain the security 
of the governor will also be directly used to protect and maintain the security of 
the office of the governor. 
{¶ 22} The remaining question then is whether the requested documents 
in this case “contain information directly used for protecting or maintaining the 
security of” the governor “against attack, interference, or sabotage” under R.C. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
149.433(A)(3)(a).  If they do, they are “security records” and properly withheld 
by the department. 
{¶ 23} The department has submitted sworn testimony of several law-
enforcement and telecommunications experts who say that investigative reports of 
threats to the governor contain information used for protecting or maintaining the 
security of the governor’s office. 
{¶ 24} For example, John Born’s affidavit states that “[e]ach threat and 
investigation thereof potentially reveals security and safety violations.”  He states 
that public disclosure of the number of threats “would expose security limitations 
and vulnerabilities” and that such disclosure “increases the risks to the safety” of 
the governor and others. 
{¶ 25} The affidavit of Paul Pride states that the department “needs to 
withhold all threat information” because releasing “even seemingly minor or 
insignificant pieces of information” can “reveal patterns, techniques or 
information” related to security. 
{¶ 26} The affidavit of Richard Baron states that “[s]ecurity planning, 
response plans, and techniques” used by the department “detail security 
limitations and vulnerabilities” and are therefore “deemed security records and/or 
infrastructure records.”  Baron goes on to state that documents disclosing “the 
content, number or treatment of prior or current threats” contain security 
information that “if disclosed (even piecemeal), could be used to commit 
terrorism, intimidation, or violence.” 
{¶ 27} Patrick Kellum’s affidavit states that public disclosure of a threat, 
even an insignificant one, may require law enforcement to change its tactics.  He 
also states that disclosure of threats, even noncredible ones, may lead to copy-cat 
offenses.  He also states that the disclosure of information regarding threats 
diminishes the effectiveness of law enforcement. 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
{¶ 28} Thus, the requested records “contain[] information directly used 
for protecting or maintaining the security” of a public office.  They are therefore 
“security records” within the meaning of the statute. 
{¶ 29} This is not to say that all records involving criminal activity in or 
near a public building or concerning a public office or official are automatically 
“security records.”  The department and other agencies of state government 
cannot simply label a criminal or safety record a “security record” and preclude it 
from release under the public-records law, without showing that it falls within the 
definition in R.C. 149.433. 
{¶ 30} But here, the records at issue involve direct threats against the 
highest official in the executive branch of Ohio government.  Information 
included in these threats, according to the affidavits provided, is used for 
protecting and maintaining the security of the governor and his staff and family 
and for maintaining the secure functioning of the governor’s office.  The records 
are therefore “security records” and exempt from disclosure as a public records 
under R.C. 149.433(B). 
{¶ 31} Because we have found that records documenting threats to the 
governor are “security records” under R.C. 149.433(A)(3)(a), we need not view 
them in camera or address the remaining arguments or statutory provisions. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 32} For all of the foregoing reasons, we deny the motions to strike and 
for in camera inspection of documents, and we deny the writ of mandamus. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, POWELL, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
MICHAEL POWELL, J., of the Twelfth Appellate District, sitting for 
KENNEDY, J. 
____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Victoria E. Ullmann, for relator. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Hillary Damaser and William J. 
Cole, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
Jennifer M. Atzberger, James L. Hardiman, and Drew S. Dennis, urging 
granting of the writ for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio 
Foundation. 
_________________________