Title: State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Joyce

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Joyce, 
97 Ohio St.3d 192, 2002-Ohio-5807.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, DIVISION OF GANNETT SATELLITE 
INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., v. JOYCE, COMMR., ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. 
Network, Inc. v. Joyce, 97 Ohio St.3d 192, 2002-Ohio-5807.] 
Public records — Mandamus sought to compel Ohio Department of Commerce, 
Division of Securities and its commissioner to provide relator with 
copies of complaints submitted to the division by investors in George 
Fiorini and various companies that he controlled or with which he was 
affiliated — Writ denied, when. 
(No. 2002-0318 — Submitted September 24, 2002 — Decided November 6, 
2002.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On March 12, 1999, a daughter of a potential investor telephoned 
respondent Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Securities (“ODS”) 
concerning an investment solicitation made by George Fiorini.  On March 31, 
1999, ODS commenced a formal investigation of Fiorini and various companies 
that he controlled or with which he was affiliated.  After March 31, 1999, ODS 
obtained approximately 32 written complaints from investors relating to the 
Fiorini investigation. 
{¶2} 
On January 22, 2002, James McNair, a reporter for relator, 
Cincinnati Enquirer, a division of Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 
requested that ODS and its commissioner, respondent Deborah Dye Joyce, 
provide him with “copies of complaints submitted to the division by investors in 
George Fiorini, Fiorini Agency, IGW Trust, The Standard Trust, Guardian 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Investments and Standard Pacific Power & Energy, and Sanitec.”  In the request, 
the Enquirer asserted that it was requesting the copies “[u]nder provisions of Ohio 
public records law, Sec. 143.43 [sic, 149.43] of the Ohio Revised Code.”  The 
Enquirer also cited State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Maurer (2001), 
91 Ohio St.3d 54, 741 N.E.2d 511, in support of its request. 
{¶3} 
On January 28, 2002, ODS denied the Enquirer’s request for 
copies of complaints.  ODS claimed that the requested records were governed by 
R.C. 1707.12 and that R.C. 1707.12 prohibited the disclosure of the records. 
{¶4} 
On February 21, 2002, the Enquirer filed this action for a writ of 
mandamus to compel respondents, ODS and Commissioner Joyce, to make the 
requested records available “for inspection and copying in accordance with R.C. 
149.43(B), and for any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court, including 
but not limited to an award of attorney’s fees.”  Respondents filed a motion to 
dismiss. 
{¶5} 
The parties attempted to settle the matter through mediation, but in 
April 2002, after the parties were unable to resolve their dispute, the case was 
returned to the regular docket.  We subsequently granted an alternative writ and 
issued a schedule for the presentation of evidence and briefs.  95 Ohio St.3d 1476, 
2002-Ohio-2492, 768 N.E.2d 1183. 
{¶6} 
This cause is now before the court for consideration of the parties’ 
request for oral argument and for consideration of the merits. 
Oral Argument 
{¶7} 
We deny the parties’ joint motion for oral argument.  The parties’ 
briefs are sufficient to resolve the issues raised, and this case does not involve a 
substantial constitutional issue, a conflict between courts of appeals, or complex 
issues of law or fact.  State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr., Inc. 
(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 459, 460, 746 N.E.2d 1108.  This case is governed by (1) 
the uncontroverted evidence that the requested records were obtained through the 
January Term, 2002 
3 
ODS investigation, (2) the construction of R.C. 1707.12(B) in light of its 
legislative purpose, and (3) precedent.  No oral argument is necessary. 
Mandamus 
{¶8} 
The Enquirer asserts that it is entitled to the requested writ of 
mandamus under R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.  For the following 
reasons, the Enquirer’s assertions lack merit, and we deny the writ. 
{¶9} 
We have held that “[b]ecause the General Assembly enacted R.C. 
149.43 subsequent to R.C. 1707.12, and never manifested an intent that the two 
provisions be coextensive in either the original enactment or any successive 
amendment, R.C. 1707.12 is the sole provision governing information collected 
by the Ohio Division of Securities.”  (Emphasis added.)  State ex rel. Dublin 
Securities, Inc. v. Ohio Div. of Securities (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 426, 627 N.E.2d 
993, syllabus. 
{¶10} The plain language of R.C. 1707.12 prohibits the disclosure of the 
complaints against Fiorini and his affiliated companies.  R.C. 1707.12(B) 
prohibits the inspection of information obtained by ODS through any 
investigation by persons other than those specifically excepted therein: 
{¶11} “Information obtained by the division through any investigation 
shall be retained by the division and shall not be available to inspection by 
persons other than those having a direct economic interest in the information or 
the transaction under investigation, or by a law enforcement officer pursuant to 
the duties of his office.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶12} The 
uncontroverted 
evidence 
introduced 
by 
respondents 
establishes that the requested complaints were “obtained * * * through the Fiorini 
investigation.”  In addition, no evidence was presented to show that the Enquirer 
has a “direct economic interest” in the requested records.  Therefore, R.C. 
1707.12(B) prohibits disclosure of the requested records. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶13} In addition, even if we assume, as relator suggests, that the 
requested complaints include unsolicited complaints, R.C. 1707.12(B) still 
prohibits their disclosure because all of the complaints were received after the 
ODS investigation began. 
{¶14} In construing a statute, our paramount concern is the legislative 
intent in enacting the statute.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati (1996), 
76 Ohio St.3d 540, 543, 668 N.E.2d 903.  We first look at the statutory language, 
according the words used their usual, normal, or customary meaning.  State ex rel. 
Besser v. Ohio State Univ. (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 535, 539, 721 N.E.2d 1044. 
{¶15} Here, the word “through” as used in the R.C. 1707.12(B) phrase 
“obtained by the division through any investigation” has several customary 
meanings, including “during the entire period of” and “as a result of.”  Webster’s 
Third New International Dictionary (1986) 2384.  Understandably, respondents 
ODS and its commissioner favor the former definition, which would include 
within the statutory exemption unsolicited complaints received following the 
initiation of an investigation, whereas the Enquirer favors the latter definition, 
which would not include unsolicited complaints. 
{¶16} We adopt the interpretation advanced by ODS and its 
commissioner.  As noted previously, our paramount concern in construing R.C. 
1707.12(B) is the legislative intent in enacting the statute.  The Ohio Securities 
Act (R.C. Chapter 1707), which is also known as the Ohio Blue Sky Law, was 
enacted to “prevent the fraudulent exploitation of the investing public through the 
sale of securities.”  In re Columbus Skyline Securities, Inc. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 
495, 498, 660 N.E.2d 427; Fehrman v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of 
Securities (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 503, 510, 751 N.E.2d 1089.  That purpose is 
best served by keeping complaints concerning possible securities violations 
confidential once an investigation has been initiated.  As cogently observed by 
respondents, if we were to adopt the Enquirer’s interpretation, complaints would 
January Term, 2002 
5 
be available to any member of the public, including the target of the ODS 
investigation.  “[I]t was hardly the legislative intent of R.C. 1707.12 to place 
investigatory files in the hands of a subject under investigation.”  Dublin 
Securities, 68 Ohio St.3d at 432, 627 N.E.2d 993.  We therefore construe R.C. 
1707.12 to avoid this unreasonable result.  R.C. 1.47(C). 
{¶17} This result is also consistent with precedent.  In Dublin Securities, 
68 Ohio St.3d 426, 627 N.E.2d 993, we held that R.C. 1707.12(B) shielded 
unsolicited complaints to ODS.  Here, the evidence is even clearer than it was in 
Dublin Securities that the unsolicited complaints that are the subject of the request 
for copies were not received by ODS until after it had initiated an investigation 
against Fiorini and his affiliated companies.  Even the dissent in Dublin Securities 
noted that the requested records in that case would have been exempt from 
disclosure under R.C. 1707.12(B) if “an active investigation was under way at the 
time the Division received the document in question.”  Id. at 433, 627 N.E.2d 993 
(Pfeifer, J., dissenting).  It is uncontroverted that this occurred here. 
{¶18} Finally, the cases cited by the Enquirer are inapposite.  Those cases 
interpret R.C. 149.43 instead of R.C. 1707.12.  See State ex rel. Beacon Journal 
Publishing Co. v. Maurer (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 54, 741 N.E.2d 511; State ex rel. 
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 662 N.E.2d 334.  
And in Maurer, in which we held that police incident reports are public records 
that do not constitute confidential law enforcement investigatory records, we 
emphasized that police “incident reports initiate criminal investigations but are 
not part of the investigation.”  Maurer, 91 Ohio St.3d at 56, 741 N.E.2d 511.  By 
contrast, a telephone call initiated the investigation of Fiorini here and not the 
requested complaints. 
{¶19} Based on the foregoing, R.C. 1707.12 governs the Enquirer’s 
request for records, and R.C. 1707.12(B) prohibits the disclosure of the requested 
records.  We therefore deny the writ of mandamus.  By so holding, we need not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
address respondents’ alternative argument that the requested records also 
constitute exempt confidential law enforcement investigatory records and trial 
preparation records under R.C. 1707.12(C).  See Dublin Securities, 68 Ohio St.3d 
at 428, 627 N.E.2d 993. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Graydon, Head & Ritchey L.L.P., John C. Greiner and John A. Flanagan, 
for relator. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Michael R. Gladman and Lisa 
Wu Fate, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents. 
__________________