Case Title: State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter

Citation: 2014-Ohio-5457

Docket Number: 2013-1694

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-12-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5457.] 
 
 
 
 
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-5457 
THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, APPELLEE, v. HUNTER, JUDGE, 
APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5457.] 
Mandamus—Respondent has no authority to provide relief sought—Appeal 
dismissed as moot. 
(No. 2013-1694—Submitted December 9, 2014—Decided December 16, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. 
 C-130072, 2013-Ohio-4459. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We dismiss this appeal as being moot. 
{¶ 2} The Cincinnati Enquirer, appellee, filed a mandamus action against 
the court administrator of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court, seeking a writ 
ordering him to reveal the names, and not just the initials, of the juveniles 
involved in cases on the docket of appellant, Judge Tracie Hunter.  Specifically, in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
December 2012, a reporter for the Enquirer had requested “the court docket or 
other documents that show the cases Hamilton County Juvenile Court Judge 
Tracie Hunter has presided over for Dec. 1-31 of this year.”  The juvenile court 
administrator sent to the Enquirer an e-mail with Judge Hunter’s docket attached.  
The attached documents did not contain the names of the juveniles, but were 
redacted to provide only initials, and the Enquirer insisted on unredacted copies.  
This dispute eventually resulted in the Enquirer filing this action in mandamus 
against the administrator in the First District Court of Appeals.  The administrator 
moved to substitute Judge Hunter for himself because he was neither the “clerk” 
nor the “court” as required by Sup.R. 47(B).  The court of appeals agreed and 
substituted Judge Hunter as respondent. 
{¶ 3} The First District Court of Appeals held for the Enquirer and ordered 
Judge Hunter to produce unredacted copies of her docket.  Judge Hunter appealed, 
and filed her merit brief in this court on January 3, 2014.  On January 10, 2014, 
we disqualified Judge Hunter from acting as a judge under Gov.Jud.R. III(6)(A).  
In re Disqualification of Hunter, 137 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2014-Ohio-59, 1 N.E.3d 
432. 
{¶ 4} Actions are moot:  
 
“when they are or have become fictitious, colorable, hypothetical, 
academic or dead. The distinguishing characteristic of such issues 
is that they involve no actual genuine, live controversy, the 
decision of which can definitely affect existing legal relations.       
* * * ‘A moot case is one which seeks to get a judgment on a 
pretended controversy, when in reality there is none, or a decision 
in advance about a right before it has been actually asserted and 
contested, or a judgment upon some matter which, when rendered, 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
for any reason cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then-
existing controversy.’ ”  
 
In re L.W., 168 Ohio App.3d 613, 2006-Ohio-644, 861 N.E.2d 546, ¶ 11, quoting 
Grove City v. Clark, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP–1369, 2002-Ohio-4549, 2002 
WL 2025334, at ¶ 11, quoting Culver v. Warren, 84 Ohio App. 373, 393, 83 
N.E.2d 82 (1948). 
{¶ 5} A live controversy no longer exists here.  Judge Hunter has neither a 
docket nor control over the documents associated with her docket from December 
2012, which are the documents at issue in this case.  Judge Hunter no longer has 
the power to provide the relief sought, that is, access to the requested records. 
{¶ 6} In short, the controversy in this case has become “hypothetical, 
academic and dead.”  Id.  The appeal is moot and is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
______________________ 
 
Graydon, Head & Ritchey, L.L.P., John C. Greiner, and Darren W. Ford, 
for appellee. 
 
James F. Bogen; and McKinney & Namei Co., L.P.A., and Firooz T. 
Namei, for appellant. 
 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Jill Beeler, Assistant Public 
Defender; Ohio Justice & Policy Center and Ngozi V. Ndulue; and Children’s 
Law Center, Inc., and Kim Tandy, in support of neither party, for amicus curiae 
Children’s Law Center, Inc. 
__________________