[Cite as State ex rel. Patituce & Scott L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 2013-Ohio-704.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 99036 

STATE, EX REL. PATITUCE & 

SCOTT L.L.C., ET AL. 

RELATORS 

vs. 

CITY OF CLEVELAND 

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion Nos. 462393 and 461819 

Order No. 462731 

RELEASE DATE: February 26, 2013 
FOR RELATORS

Megan Patituce 

Catherine Meehan 

Patituce & Scott, L.L.C. 

26777 Lorain Road, Suite 708 

North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Barbara A. Langhenry 

Director of Law 

By: Alejandro V. Cortes 

 William M. Menzalora 

Assistant Directors of Law 

City of Cleveland Department of Law 

601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077 
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: 

{¶1} On October 9, 2012, the relators, Patituce & Scott, L.L.C., and Jennifer 

Scott, commenced this public records mandamus action against the respondent, the city of 

Cleveland. The public records request sought the personnel files, training certificates, 

disciplinary reports, and continuing education hours for twelve named Cleveland police 

officers. Previously, Cleveland had rejected the public records request on the basis that 

it was an improper request for criminal discovery pursuant to State ex rel. Steckman v. 

Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83 (1994). The relators sought the records, 

statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees. 

{¶2} On January 22, 2013, Cleveland moved for summary judgment on the 

grounds of mootness. Cleveland had released all of the requested records to the relators 

on December 6, 2012. Cleveland noted that one of the officers was not employed by 

Cleveland; thus, there were no records relating to that officer. Cleveland, pursuant to 

specified exemptions, redacted certain personal information, such as social security 

numbers, employee house numbers and street names, day and month of birth, personal 

telephone numbers, family information, medical records, and the photographs of the 

officers. Cleveland also argued that the relators were not entitled to statutory damages 

because they had not fulfilled the statutory prerequisite of submitting the request in 

person or by certified mail. Nor were the relators entitled to attorney fees because they 

had not shown a public benefit. 
{¶3} On February 12, 2013, the relators belatedly filed their response to 

Cleveland’s motion for summary judgment and moved for their own summary judgment. 

In this filing, the relators admit that the matter is moot because the requested records have 

been released. Nor do they contest the redactions, statutory damages, or attorney fees. 

The relators seek court costs, which have to be awarded. 

{¶4} Accordingly, this court grants both summary judgment motions. This 

public records mandamus action is moot; the relators have received their requested 

records. Thus, the court denies the application for a writ of mandamus. The relators 

are not entitled to statutory damages or attorney fees. Respondent to pay court costs. 

This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date 

of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶5} Writ denied.

 

 

 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR