[Cite as Meros v. Office of Ohio Atty. Gen. Yost , 2023

- Ohio

- 1861.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} In this public

- records case, Request er Thomas L. Meros, a se lf

- re pr e s ented li tigant, has filed written objections to a Special Master ’ s Recommendation To Dismiss

. The Court overrules Requester ’ s objections a nd dismisses Requester ’ s Complaint without prejudice for reasons set forth below. I. B a ckground {¶2} On February 23 , 2023 , R equester filed a public

- records complain t against Re s pondent Office of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost

. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2),

a Special Ma ster has i ssued a Recommendation To Dism iss . The Special Master recommends dismissing th is case without pre judic e and assessing costs against Requester on grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction overall , or at least large portions of, Requester ’ s claims , and that t he fact intensiv e nature of Reque ster ’ s claims combine d with th is C ourt’s limited factfindin g ca pabilities warrant dismissal

. {¶3} Requester has filed written objections to the Special Mast er ’ s Recommendation To Dismiss. Respondent has filed a response to R equester ’ s objections , urging the Court to deny the objections and enter judgment in accordanc e wit h the Special M ast er ’ s Recommendation To Dismiss.

II. Law and Analysis THOMAS L. MEROS Requester

v.
OFFICE OF OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVE YOST Respondent Case No. 2023

- 00146PQ Judge Lisa L. Sa dler
DECISION AND ENTRYCase No. 2023

- 00146PQ

- 2

- DEC I SION AND ENTRY

{¶4} Requester essentially main tains in his objections that the Special Master prejudicially erred because the Special Master faile d to refer this case to medi ation and because he failed t o c ontact Re quester b efore recommending dismissal of this case without pr ejudice

. Requester ’ s objections thus ask the Court to determine whether , in this instan ce, the Special Master complied with requirements set forth in R.C . 2743.75

. {¶5} “ Th e polestar of s t at utory i nterpretation is legislative intent, which a court best gleans from the words the General Assembly used and the purpose it sought to accomplish. Where the wording of a statute is clear and unambiguous, [a ] court ’ s onl y task is to g ive effect to t h e words u sed. ” State v. Elam , 68 Ohio St.3d 585, 587, 629 N.E.2d 442 (1994)

. Accord Slingluff v. Weaver , 66 Ohi o St. 621, 64 N.E. 574 (1902) , paragraph one of the syllabus ; Haver v. Accountancy Bd. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 0 5AP

280, 2006

- Ohio

- 1162, ¶ 1 5

- 1 6

. The Ohio Supreme Court has held :

[T] he intent of the law

- makers is to be sought first of all in the language employed, and if the words be free from ambigu ity and doubt, and express p lainly, clearly and distinctly, the se nse of the law

- making body, t h er e is no occasion to resort to other means of interpretation. The quest ion is not what did the general assembly intend to enact, but what is the meaning of tha t which it did enact. That b ody should be held to mean what it has plainly expre ssed, and henc e no room i s left for construction. Singluff at paragraph two of the syllabus. “ A guiding principle of statutory interpretation is that the statute must be const rued as a whole and each of its parts must be given effect so that they are com patible with e a c h o ther a nd related enactments. ” Brookwood Presbyterian Church v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. , 127 Ohio St.3d 469, 2010

- Ohio

- 5710, 940 N.E.2d 1256, ¶ 26 , citing Humphry s v. Winous Co. , 165 Ohio St. 45, 49, 133 N.E.2d 780 (1956)

. {¶6} The pl ain language of R.C. 2743. 7 5 sh ows th at , through R.C

. 2743.75, the General Assembly intended to create an expeditious and economical procedure to resolve certain public

- records disputes in this forum. See R.C. 2743.75(A)

. Indeed, t he Ohio Supreme Court h as stated: “ Recogniz ing th a t di sputes over pu blic

- records requests can frustrate the law ’ s essential purpose, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2743.75(A)

‘ to provide for an expeditious an d economical procedure that attempts to resolve disputesCase No. 2023

- 00146PQ

- 3

- DEC I SION AND ENTRY

alle ging a denial of access to public r eco rds ’ in violat ion of R.C 149.43(B). ” We lsh

Huggins at ¶ 12. {¶7} Consistent with the General Assembly ’ s intention to establish a procedure in R.C. 2743.75 that is “ expeditious ” and “ economical , ” pursuant to R.C. 2743.75 (E) (3)(a) , a special master “ shall n ot pe rmit any discovery

. ” Additionally , in enacting R.C. 2743.75, the General A ssembly recognized that not all cases should be adjudicate d und er R.C. 2743.75

. See , e.g. , R

. C. 2743.75(C)(2). R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) provides:

If the a lleg edly aggrieved person files a compl aint under this section and the court of claims determin es that the complaint constitutes a case of first impression that involves an iss ue of substantial publi c interest, the court shall dismiss the complaint without pre judice and direct the alleg edly agg rieved person to commence a mandamus action in the court of appeals with appropriate jurisdiction as provided in [R.C. 149.43 (C)(1) ]

. {¶8} Moreover, c o nsistent with the Gen eral Assembly ’ s intention in R.C. 2743.75 of provi ding an “expeditious ” and “econ omical ” procedure , the General Assembly has directed that “ [n] otwithstanding any provision to the contrary in [ R .C. 2 743.75 ] , upon the recommend ation of the special mast er, th e c ourt of claims on its o w n motio n may dismi ss th e compla int at a ny time

. ” R.C. 2743.75(D)(2)

. Through R.C. 2743.75(D )(2), the General Assembly has authorized a special master to recommend dismissal s of public

records complaints. {¶9} Reques tor ’ s criticisms that the Spe cia l Master “ made no effort to conta ct Re la tor and to discuss this matter ” (Obj ections a t ¶ 4) and that t he Special Master “ only sent Relator a certified letter that conveyed his recom mendation to dismiss this case ” (Objections at ¶ 4) are of no moment

. Pursuant to Rule 2.9 of th e Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct , su b ject t o exce ptions, a judge “ shall not initiate, receive, permit, or consi der ex parte communications

. ” This general prohibition against initiating, receiving, permitting, or considering ex parte communi cations applies to the Spec ial Master. See Applicat ion, I (B) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Con duct ( “ [a] judge, within the meaning of this code, is a lawyer who is authorized to perform judicial functions within a court, including an officer such as a magistrate, court commissioner, or special master ” (emph asis a dded)). And ,Case No. 2023

- 00146PQ

- 4

- DEC I SION AND ENTRY

as discussed above, u nder R.C. 2 743.75(D)(2) a special master is authorized to recommend dismi ssal of a publi c - records complaint

. {¶10} Requester maintains that the Special Ma ster prejudicially erred because the Speci al Master failed to refer this case t o med iati on under R.C. 2743.75 (E) (1). R.C. 2743.75 (E) (1) provides:

Upon servic e of a complaint under [ R.C. 2743.75 (D)(1) ] , except as otherwise provided in this division, the sp ecial master assigned by the clerk under [ R.C. 2743.75 (D)(2) ] immed iately shall refe r th e case to mediation services that the court of c laims makes available to persons. If, in the interest of justice considering the circumstances of the case or the partie s, the special master determines that the case should not be referr ed to mediat ion, the special master shall notify t he court that the c ase was not referred to mediation, and the ca se shall proceed in accordance with [ R.C. 2743.75 (F) ]

. * * *

. Requester foc uses on the phr ase “ the special master ass igned by the clerk under [ R.C. 2743.7 5 (D)( 2) ] immediately shall refer the c ase to mediation services that the court of c laims makes availab le to persons ” (emphasis added) to advance his argument that the Special M aster prejudic ia l ly erred by not referring this case to mediation

. Reques ter ’ s focu s, however, fails to account for the following se ntence in the statute : “ If, in the inter est of j ustice considering the circumstances of the case or the parties, the specia l master determines that the case should no t be referred to mediati on , the spec ial m aster shall notify the court that the c ase was not referred to mediation, and the case sh all proc eed in accordance with [ R.C. 2743.75 (F) ]

. ” ( Emphasis added.) Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75 (E) (1) , a spec ial mas ter thus i s not required to refer all cas es to medi ation services that the Court makes available

. In this ins tance, in the Recommendation To Dismiss, the Special Master made it clear that, in his view, the Court generally lacked subject matter jurisdiction , which, in turn, obviated t he ne ed to r efer this case to mediation and proceed under R.C. 2743.75(F)

. {¶11} W hen R.C. 2743.75 is construed as a whole and each of its p arts are given effect s o that they are compatible with each other, a special matter may recommend a
com plaint for dismissa l pur suant t o R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) ; a special master is not requiredCase No. 2023

- 00146PQ

- 5

- DEC I SION AND ENTRY

to r efer every case to mediation pursuant to R.C. 2743.75 (E) (1) ; and p ursuant to R.C

. 2743 .75(D)(2), upon a s pecial m aster ’ s recommendation , this Court m ay sua sponte dis miss a public

- recor ds co mplaint at any time. {¶12} In the Recommendation To Dismiss, the Special Mas ter states: The fact intensiv

e nature of Meros’ claims combines wi th this C ourt’ s limited fact

- f

inding capabilities to warrant dismissal . R.C. 2743.75 was intend ed t o provide a pr ocess for ad dressing p ublic records disputes that can be resolved “efficient [ly]” without discovery. Grant , 2022

- Ohio

- 1619, ¶ 4, n. 1; R.C. 2743 .75(E)(3)(a). This Court has therefore dismissed cases that cannot be effici ently adjudicated beca use they invol ve fa ctual d isputes that cannot be resolved without discovery and because th ey are unlikely to be resolved through mediation. Requestors pressin g such claims are instead lef t to pursue them through mandamus proceedings i n courts where dis cove ry is permitte d. Id . at ¶¶ 2, 6; Advance Local Media , 2022

- Ohio

- 321, ¶ 2. This is such a c ase. Meros’ primary public records contention is that

more records exist than Res pondents have pr oduced, an inherently factual question. He ther efore seeks to con duct discovery on that questio n, something that R.C. 2643.75(E)(3)(a) prohibits. Th at, along w ith the unavailability of evidentiary hearings, leaves the Court with no efficien t way to resolve that fact question. See Grant, 2022

- Ohio

- 1619 , ¶ 4; Advance Loc al M edia , 2022

- Ohi o - 321 ; Welsh

- Huggins v. Office of the Prosecuting Atty ., Ct. of C l. No. 2018

- 00793PQ, 2019

- Ohio

- 964, ¶ 11 (no evidentiary hearings in R .C. 2743.75 cases). An d given Meros’ v ehemence, it is highly unlikely that his claims will be resolved thro ugh mediation. In s hort, t he Court will likely be faced with factual questions it has no e fficient way to resolve. The Special Master therefore recom mends that this case b e dismissed with out prejudice, leaving Meros’ free to pursue hi s claims in courts wit h greater fact

- find ing cap ability

. (Emphasis sic.) (Recommendation To Dismiss, 3

- 4.)Case No. 2023

- 00146PQ

- 6

- DEC I SION AND ENTRY

{¶13} Upo n inde pendent review, the Court agrees with t he Special M aster ’ s determination th at, if this case were to proceed in this forum, then this Court likely would be fa ced with fac tual quest ions th at it has no efficient way to resolve , which , in turn, contraven es the expedi tious and economical procedure intended by the General Assembly when it enacted R.C. 2743.75. Moreover, to the exten t that Request er ’ s filing of a “ V erified Original Actio n In Ma ndamus ” (Filing dated February 27, 20 23) is construed as a mandamus action, this Court lacks statutory ju risdic tion over Requester ’ s mandamus action. See Rose v. Ohio Dep t. of Reha b. & Co rrect ion , 173 Ohio App.3d 767, 2007

- Ohi o - 6184, 880 N.E .2 d 508 , ¶ 23 (10t h Dist.) ( “ it is * * * cl ear under Ohio law that the Court of Claims , a court of limit ed jurisdiction, lacks statuto ry jurisdi ction to consid er mandamus ” ). See also R.C. 149.43(C) ( 1)(a) an d (b) (an allegedly aggrieved pers on may do only on e of the fol lowing, and not bot h : file a complaint under R. C. 2743. 75 or

commence a mandamus action to ob tain a judgment). III. Conclusion {¶14} The Court overrules Requester ’ s objectio ns for r easons set forth above

. Pursuan t to R.C. 2743.75(D)( 2), and upon the Spec ial M aster ’ s rec ommendation, the Cou rt sua sponte dismisses Requester ’ s C omplaint without prejudi ce . Court costs are assessed to Requester

. The C ler k s ha ll se rve upon all p art ies n otice of t h is judgment

an d it s d ate of entry upon t he jou rnal

.

LISA L. SADLER Judge

Filed May 24 , 2023 Sent to S.C. Reporter 6/ 5 /23