Title: State ex rel. WBNS 10-TV, Inc. v. Hawkins

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. WBNS 10-TV, Inc. v. Hawkins, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2500.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-2500 
THE STATE EX REL. WBNS 10-TV, INC. v. HAWKINS, JUDGE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. WBNS 10-TV, Inc. v. Hawkins, Slip Opinion No. 
2019-Ohio-2500.] 
Mandamus—Prohibition—Prohibition is the proper vehicle to challenge trial-
court order closing court proceedings—Writ of prohibition granted—Writ 
of mandamus denied. 
(No. 2019-0189—Submitted March 26, 2019—Decided June 26, 2019.) 
IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION. 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action by relator, WBNS 10-TV, Inc., for writs of 
prohibition and mandamus against respondent, Franklin County Common Pleas 
Domestic Relations Court Judge Monica Hawkins.  Judge Hawkins agrees that a 
writ of prohibition should issue, and we hereby grant a writ of prohibition.  We 
deny the request for a writ of mandamus in Count One of 10-TV’s complaint as 
moot, deny the requests in 10-TV’s emergency motion for peremptory writs of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
prohibition and mandamus as moot, and grant the parties’ stipulated application to 
dismiss Count Two. 
{¶ 2} On Thursday, January 31, 2019, Judge Hawkins was arrested for 
driving under the influence.  On February 4, a reporter for 10-TV made a written 
request for media access to the proceedings in Judge Hawkins’s courtroom 
scheduled for that same day.  Judge Hawkins denied the request without conducting 
the requisite closure hearing.  Her entry denying 10-TV’s request was based on the 
ground that 10-TV did not give court personnel sufficient advance notice.  
However, when 10-TV asked Judge Hawkins’s bailiff for a copy of the court’s 
docket for the next day so that it could make a more timely request for media access, 
the court refused. 
{¶ 3} On February 6, 2019, 10-TV commenced an original action seeking 
writs of prohibition and mandamus.  Specifically, in Count One of the complaint, 
10-TV sought a writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, or both to prevent Judge 
Hawkins from closing her courtroom unless and until she complied with the 
procedural requirements for doing so.  And in Count Two, 10-TV sought a writ of 
mandamus to compel Judge Hawkins to produce the requested docket in 
compliance with Ohio’s Public Records Act.  At the same time that 10-TV filed the 
complaint, 10-TV also filed a motion for a peremptory writ of prohibition or 
mandamus. 
{¶ 4} In accordance with an order from this court, on February 12, Judge 
Hawkins filed an expedited response to 10-TV’s complaint and emergency-relief 
motion.  In her response to Count One of 10-TV’s complaint, she wrote that she 
“agrees to the issuance of a peremptory writ of prohibition requiring compliance 
with Sup.R. 12 and associated case law.”1  In response to 10-TV’s demands for 
                                                 
1.  Sup.R. 12, titled “Conditions for broadcasting and photographing court proceedings,” establishes 
rules and procedures governing media access to courtrooms. 
 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
writs of mandamus to compel the release of public records, Judge Hawkins affirmed 
that “all public records requested by [10-TV] have been provided” and that it was 
her understanding that the mandamus requests would be dismissed as moot. 
{¶ 5} Prohibition is the proper vehicle to challenge a trial-court order that 
closes court proceedings.  State ex rel. News Herald v. Ottawa Cty. Court of 
Common Pleas, Juv. Div., 77 Ohio St.3d 40, 43, 671 N.E.2d 5 (1996).  We hereby 
grant a writ of prohibition and vacate any order denying courtroom access to 10-
TV that was issued by Judge Hawkins without an evidentiary hearing.  Our decision 
renders moot 10-TV’s alternative request for a writ of mandamus, and we 
accordingly deny the request on that basis.  Likewise, 10-TV’s emergency motion 
for a peremptory writ of prohibition is denied as moot. 
{¶ 6} With respect to Count Two in 10-TV’s complaint, mandamus is the 
appropriate remedy by which to compel compliance with Ohio’s Public Records 
Act, R.C. 149.43.  State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio 
State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, 
¶ 6.  However, on April 22, 2019, the parties filed a stipulated notice of partial 
dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 41, dismissing Count Two of the complaint.  Pursuant 
to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.05, we grant the application to dismiss Count Two. 
{¶ 7} In sum, we grant a writ of prohibition, deny the request for a writ of 
mandamus in Count One as moot, deny the motion for peremptory writs as moot, 
and grant the application to dismiss Count Two. 
Writ of prohibition granted  
and writ of mandamus denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Zeiger, Tigges & Little, L.L.P., and Marion H. Little Jr., for relator. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick A. Soulas 
Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
_________________