Title: State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio-
662.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. OFFICE OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER 
ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. SIROKI, CLERK, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
 [Cite as State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki,  
108 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio-662.] 
Public records requests — Redaction of Social Security numbers. 
(No. 2005-1142 — Submitted January 25, 2006 — Decided March 1, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 20433. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to 
compel the immediate production of public records containing Social Security 
numbers. 
{¶ 2} On March 26, 2004, appellants, the office of the Montgomery 
County Public Defender and Assistant Public Defender Janet R. Sorrell, filed a 
petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County 
to compel appellees, Susan M. Siroki, Clerk of Court for the Moraine Mayor’s 
Court, the city of Moraine, and Moraine Mayor Robert Rosencrans, to make 
certain records available for inspection in accordance with the Public Records 
Act, R.C. 149.43.  Appellants alleged that on March 23, 2004, Sorrell asked to 
inspect the mayor’s court records of Rickey Person and Robert Cochran, who had 
been incarcerated and charged with criminal offenses by the city of Moraine.  
According to appellants, Siroki offered to provide copies of the requested records 
but refused to permit inspection of the records except by Person’s and Cochran’s 
attorney of record.  Appellants further alleged that at other times within the 
previous four months, Sorrell had made similar requests to inspect other records 
of the clerk’s office, and some of those requests had been denied.  Appellants 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
further claimed that the refusal to permit inspection of records of the Moraine 
Mayor’s Court constituted retaliation against the public defender’s office.  
{¶ 3} On April 21, 2004, Siroki mailed a letter to Sorrell advising her 
that she could inspect the public records for Person, Cochran, and any other 
individual who had a public record in the clerk’s office.  Siroki specified that 
public records would be made available in accordance with R.C. 149.43 and 
Moraine Codified Ordinances 127.02.  Appellees then moved for summary 
judgment. 
{¶ 4} On April 28, 2004, Sorrell went to the clerk’s office and asked to 
inspect the files for Moses Kubander and Elizabeth Tabar, who had been 
incarcerated and brought before the mayor’s court on April 26.  Siroki refused to 
permit Sorrell to inspect the files until she had redacted the Social Security 
numbers from them, and, because of the size of the requested files, Siroki 
indicated that the files would not be ready for inspection until the next day.  
Sorrell later inspected Kubander’s and Tabar’s files. 
{¶ 5} On May 12, 2004, Sorrell requested that the clerk’s office permit 
her to inspect the file for Michael Allen Kraph, who had been incarcerated on a 
Moraine criminal charge.  Siroki held up Kraph’s ticket on one side of a 
plexiglass partition, with her thumb over the Social Security number on the ticket, 
while Sorrell viewed the document from the other side of the partition. 
{¶ 6} On May 13, 2004, appellants filed a memorandum in opposition to 
appellees’ motion for summary judgment.  Appellants claimed that 
notwithstanding appellees’ contentions to the contrary, Siroki was not complying 
with R.C. 149.43 and Moraine Codified Ordinances 127.02.  Appellants asserted 
that records had not been promptly provided and that inspection rights had been 
limited. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 7} Shortly thereafter, appellants moved for summary judgment.  
Appellants claimed that Siroki could not delay disclosure of clerk’s office files 
until she had redacted Social Security numbers. 
{¶ 8} The parties filed depositions.  In her deposition, Sorrell admitted 
that she did not then have any outstanding request for records from Siroki that had 
not been satisfied.  Sorrell also conceded that she did not use or need Social 
Security numbers.  Siroki testified that a separate, private file was kept by the 
prosecutor, which could not be viewed by the general public until the case had 
been terminated. 
{¶ 9} On May 13, 2005, the court of appeals denied the requested writ of 
mandamus insofar as appellants claimed that they were entitled to inspect the 
requested records immediately without any redactions of Social Security numbers.  
The court of appeals reasoned: 
{¶ 10} “[T]o the extent the requested documents contain social security 
numbers, [appellees] must have a reasonable amount of time to redact such 
information prior to disclosing the public documents.  * * * [I]t is unreasonable 
for the Relators to expect [appellee] Siroki to respond to their request for public 
documents without a moment’s delay.  We do not believe that [appellants] have a 
clear legal right to such immediacy under R.C. [§] 149.43.” 
{¶ 11} The court of appeals further observed in dicta that under Moraine 
Codified Ordinances 127.02(1)(C)(b)(i), appellees had a policy of producing 
public records for inspection within two working days of the request and that such 
a time frame “seems reasonable,” but that “to the extent [appellee] Siroki is 
capable of providing the requested documents to the Relators in less time, every 
reasonable effort should be made to do so.” 
{¶ 12} In addition, the court of appeals granted the writ of mandamus 
relating to appellees’ practice of keeping a separate, nonpublic prosecutor’s file 
and ordered that all documents pertaining to cases in the mayor’s court “must be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
made available to the public, upon request, regardless of whether the case is 
currently pending or has been finally adjudicated.”  The court of appeals also 
found Siroki’s practice of making requesters view documents through a plexiglass 
partition to be unacceptable. 
{¶ 13} In their appeal as of right, appellants assert that the court of 
appeals erred in holding that Siroki could redact Social Security numbers before 
providing access to the clerk’s office files. 
{¶ 14} For the following reasons, however, appellants’ claim lacks merit. 
{¶ 15} Appellants could have raised, but did not raise, their claims 
concerning the alleged failure of appellees to provide them timely access to 
records in their complaint or move to amend their complaint to include that claim.  
State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 391, 
715 N.E.2d 179.  In fact, appellants’ complaint was limited to seeking certain 
records that they later admitted they had been afforded the opportunity to inspect. 
{¶ 16} Further, if the parties had expressly or impliedly consented to trial 
of this claim under Civ.R. 15(B), appellants’ request would have been comparable 
to one to compel appellees, including Siroki, to produce public records in the 
future without delay.  Such claims have been found to be lacking in merit.  See 
State ex rel. Consumer News Servs., Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio 
St.3d 58, 2002-Ohio-5311, 776 N.E.2d 82, ¶ 51 (“We refuse, however, to grant 
the specific request by [relator] that respondents provide public records ‘without 
delay,’ because the statutory standard ‘promptly’ relates only to the right to 
inspection, and access to public records will ultimately be dependent upon the 
facts and circumstances of each request”); see, also, State ex rel. Dispatch 
Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-4384, 833 N.E.2d 274, ¶ 
44. 
{¶ 17} Moreover, “R.C. 149.43(A) envisions an opportunity on the part of 
the public office to examine records prior to inspection in order to make 
January Term, 2006 
5 
appropriate redactions of exempt materials.”  State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, 
Inc. v. Hutson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 619, 623, 640 N.E.2d 174.  One of the 
recognized exemptions is the constitutional right of privacy, which precludes 
disclosure of Social Security numbers.  See State ex rel. Beacon Journal 
Publishing Co. v. Akron (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 605, 610, 640 N.E.2d 164, quoting 
Greidinger v. Davis (C.A.4, 1993), 988 F.2d 1344, 1353-1354 (“ ‘armed with 
one’s SSN, an unscrupulous individual could obtain a person’s welfare benefits or 
Social Security benefits, order new checks at a new address on that person’s 
checking account, obtain credit cards, or even obtain the person’s paycheck.  * * * 
Succinctly stated, the harm that can be inflicted from the disclosure of an SSN to 
an unscrupulous individual is alarming and potentially financially ruinous’ ”). 
{¶ 18} We have specifically held that public-records custodians should 
redact Social Security numbers from otherwise public records before disclosing 
them under R.C. 149.43.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Highlander v. Rudduck, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 370, 2004-Ohio-4952, 816 N.E.2d 213, ¶ 25 (“in accordance with 
Highlander’s request, Judge Rudduck should promptly make any appropriate 
redactions, e.g., Social Security numbers, before releasing the [court] records”); 
State ex rel. Wadd v. Cleveland (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 50, 53, 689 N.E.2d 25 
(“there is nothing to suggest that Wadd would not be entitled to public access of 
the preliminary, unnumbered accident reports following prompt redaction of 
exempt information such as Social Security numbers”); and 2004 Ohio 
Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2004-045, paragraph two of the syllabus (“Because individuals 
possess a constitutionally protected privacy right in their social security numbers, 
such numbers when contained in a court’s criminal case files are not public 
records for purposes of R.C. 149.43”). 
{¶ 19} Appellants claim that because they would be subject to ethical and 
disciplinary sanctions, as well as criminal punishment, if they ever misused Social 
Security numbers provided to them in a public-records request, there is no reason 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
to withhold those numbers before permitting appellants access to the records.  In 
effect, appellants contend that their legitimate purpose in requesting the records 
overcomes any rationale to delay their ability to inspect them.  Appellants’ 
purpose, however, is irrelevant.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake 
Cty. Sheriff’s Dept. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 37, 40, 693 N.E.2d 789.  If the records 
were public, they would be subject to disclosure to all persons, not simply lawyers 
with good intentions or persons subject to additional civil penalties because of the 
nature of their profession. 
{¶ 20} Additionally, appellants’ reliance on a new affidavit attached to 
their merit brief in support of their appeal is misplaced.  “ ‘A reviewing court 
cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not a part of the trial court’s 
proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter.’ ”  State 
ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730, 654 
N.E.2d 1254, quoting State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 8 O.O.3d 405, 
377 N.E.2d 500, paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 21} Finally, permitting Siroki the opportunity to redact Social Security 
numbers before disclosing records does not contravene the purpose of the Public 
Records Act, which is “to expose government activity to public scrutiny.”  State 
ex rel. WHIO-TV-7 v. Lowe (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 350, 355, 673 N.E.2d 1360.  
See, also, State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Petro (1997), 80 
Ohio St.3d 261, 685 N.E.2d 1223.  Revealing individuals’ Social Security 
numbers that are contained in criminal records does not shed light on any 
government activity. 
{¶ 22} Therefore, the court of appeals did not err in holding that Siroki 
could redact Social Security numbers before providing access to the clerk’s office 
files. 
January Term, 2006 
7 
{¶ 23} Appellants next contend that the court erred in holding that the 
two-day review period provided by the ordinance was reasonable.  Codified 
Ordinances of Moraine 127.02(1)(C) provides: 
{¶ 24} “Records created through the normal operation of the Mayor’s 
Court shall be processed through the Clerk of Court Office. 
{¶ 25} “* * * 
{¶ 26} “(b) Such records shall be promptly prepared and made available 
for inspection Monday through Friday, 8:00AM to 4:00PM.  The length of time 
needed to prepare the record(s) will vary depending on the size of the request. 
{¶ 27} “(i)  The Clerk of Court shall, however, make every effort to 
produce the record(s) within (2) working days of the date the request is received.” 
{¶ 28} Appellants waived any argument challenging the propriety of the 
ordinance because they failed to plead this claim in their petition or otherwise 
raise it in the court of appeals.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio 
St.3d 160, 2004-Ohio-2054, 807 N.E.2d 357, ¶ 6.  And, as the court of appeals 
emphasized, if Siroki is capable of providing the requested records in less than 
two days, she should do so pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B). 
{¶ 29} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err in refusing 
to grant a writ of mandamus to compel the immediate production of records 
containing Social Security numbers.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Glen H. Dewar, Montgomery County Public Defender, and Timothy 
Young, Deputy Public Defender, for appellants. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Bieser, Greer & Landis, L.L.P., David C. Greer, and Jennifer L. Stueve; 
Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A., and Robert J. Surdyk, for appellees. 
______________________