[Cite as Doe v. Ohio State Univ. , 2024
- Ohio
- 565.]

IN T HE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} In this public

- records case, both Re quester and Respondent filed o bjections to a Special Master ’ s Report and Recommendation. Requester filed a response in opposition to Respondent ’ s objections

. The Court overrules al l the objections and adopts the Special Master ’ s Re port and Recommendation for the reasons that follow.

I. Backgr ound {¶2} Although R equester proce eds as John Doe, it is openly acknowled ged that Requester is a ticket reseller

. Between Ma rch 24, 2023 and July 3, 2023 , Requester made several pu b lic records requests to Respondent Ohio State Uni versity (OSU) that

— when combined

— would provide Requester with a list of OSU ’ s employe es and donors to whom OSU sells season tickets for its football and basket ball games , their physical and email address es , phone numbers , and season ticket specifics: section, row, and seat identification

. A fter OSU only pro vided partial , redacted records , R equester filed a p ublic

r ecords complaint on July 25, 2023. {¶3} The Court, through a Special Master, referred the matter to med iation. Mediation failed to resolve all the disputed issues between the parties. Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B), OSU moved to dismiss Requester ’ s C omplaint on the grounds that the reco rds in question were trade secrets, that portions of the re cords were protected by the Family Educational R ights and Privacy Act ( FERPA), and that portions of the reco rds wer e not JOHN DOE Requester

v. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Respondent Case No. 2023

- 00498PQ Judge David E. Cain
DECISION AND ENTRYCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 2

- DECISION AND ENTRY

public records pu rsuant to State ex re. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson , 106 Ohio St.3d 160, 200 5

- Ohio

- 4384, 883 N.E. 2d 274. After Requester filed a R eply to OSU ’ s Motion to Dismiss, OSU filed a Reply in support of its Motion to Dismis s . Requester then filed a Motion to Strike OSU ’ s Reply , which inclu ded a request for sanctions and attor ney s ’ fees

. Both parties submitted evidence in support of their arguments , and the Special Master conducted an in camera review of unre da cted copies of the records in co ntention. {¶4} On D ecember 21, 2023, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation finding that the majority of the documents sought were public rec ords. T h e Special Master also concluded that the records were not protected f rom disclosure as trade secrets , but some information regarding students was prote cted from disclosure by FERPA

. Ad ditionally , he concluded that the OSU identification number a nd the physical address for each t icket holder w ere not public record s , but rather they were informa tion that was k ep t merely for administrative convenience. The Special Master recommended that OSU be ordered to produce unreda c ted copies of all records resp onsive to the public records reque sts except for certain pages and rows that contain student informati on . T h e Special Master further recommended that OSU be permitted to redact information about ticketholder s ’ OSU identification number s and physical addresse s. The Special Master recomme nded that Requester ’ s Motion to Str ike OSU ’ s R eply and the reques t s therein for sa nctions and attorneys ’ fees be denied. Lastly, the Special Master recommended that Requester recover his filing fee and costs in this case
a nd that OSU bear the balance of the costs

. {¶5} Both Requester and OSU filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Requester served its objection s on OSU via certified mail, return receipt request ed , as required by R.C

. 2743.75(F)(2) , but OSU only served its objections on Re quester via email and the Court ’ s e - f iling system. Requester filed a timely resp onse to OSU ’ s objections. Additionally, on Ja nuary 5, 2024, OSU filed a Motion for Leave to Amend its original Motion to Dismiss. In response, Requester filed a Memorandum Contra OSU ’ s M o tion for Leave to Amend Motion to Dismiss , Motion to Strike sa id Motion for Leave, and Motion f or Sanctions , to which OSU replied

.Case No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 3

- DECISION AND ENTRY

II. Law and Analysis {¶6} The Gen e ral Ass e mb ly has cre ate d a n al ternat i ve means to resolve public

r e co r ds disput e s th r ough t he enact m ent of R.C. 2743. 75

. W e lsh

- Huggin s v. Jeffe rso n Ct y . Prose cutor ’ s O ffice , 163 O hio St. 3d 337, 2020

- Oh i o - 5 3 7 1, 17 0 N

. E .3d 76 8 , ¶ 1 1

.

“ [T] he General Assembly enacted R.C. 2743.75(A) ‘ to provide for an expediti ous and economical procedure that attempts to resolve disputes all eging a denial of ac cess to public records ’ in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). ” Id. at ¶ 12, quoting R.C

. 2743.7 5 (A).

A. Extraneous Filings {¶7} As a preliminary matter, the Court must first discuss extraneous filings that exceeded the inte nded bounds of this expedi tious and economical procedure

. I n a proce e ding bef ore the Special Master purs uant to R.C. 2743.75, there is no discov ery and filings are limited to those provided for in the statute or a s otherwise ordered by the Special Master. R.C. 2743.75(E). A fter medi a tion fail ed to resolve all disputed issues, the Special Master ordered the parties to file all evidence in support of their argume nts and ordered OSU to file unredacted copies of all responsive records by November 20 , 2023. ( Nov

. 3, 2023 Order Termin ating Mediation.) For briefin g, the Sp ecial Master ordered OSU to file either or both a response and a motion to di smiss by December 1, 2023 , and ordered Requester to fi le a reply by Dece mber 12, 2023 . ( Id. ) Those were the only filings ordered by the Special Mas ter and thus permitted by R.C. 2743.75(E). As to objections, R.C. 2743.75 (F)( 2) permits each party to file objections to the S pecial Master ’ s Report and Recommendation and , if the other party filed objections, a response thereto

. {¶8} In additio n to these permitted filings, OSU f iled a Reply in support o f its Motion to Dismiss on December 12, 2023. On the same day, Request er filed a Motion to Strike OSU ’ s Reply and requested sanction s and attor neys ’ fees. Proceedings under R.C. 2743.75 are special stat utory pr oceedings , the procedure for whic h is establish ed by the statute

. Andes v. Ohio AG ’ s Office, Ct. of Cl. No. 2017

- 00144

- PQ, 2017

- Ohio

- 4251 , adopted , May 31, 2017 (McGrath, J.)

. Therefore, the civil rules do not apply “ to the exte nt that they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable [

. ] ” Civ .R. 1( C ) ; see also R.C. 2743.03(D). W hen the Special Master issued a briefing schedule that did not provide forCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 4

- DECISION AND ENTRY

a reply brief, that ord er superseded any other provision allowing for a reply brief

. OSU ’ s Decembe r 12, 20 23 Reply was , therefore, a legal nullity. See PNC Bank, N.A. v. J & J Slyman , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101777, 2015

- Ohio

- 2951 , ¶ 20 ( “Generall y, where leave is required to file a pleading, and a party files its pleading withou t the r equi site leave, a trial court ma y trea t it as a legal nullity. ”)

. Accordingly, OSU ’s December 12, 2023 Reply will not be considered. {¶9} Nevertheless , the Reply is not redundant, immaterial, imper tinent, or
s candalous. See C i v. R. 12(F). No r does it obviously serve merely to harass , cause unnecessary delay, or needlessl y increase the cost of litigation so as to be frivolous. See R.C. 2323.51 (A)( 2 )( a)(i) . Therefore, R equester ’ s December 12 , 2023 Motion to Strike, includ ing the requests for sanctions and attorneys ’ fees, is DENIED. {¶10} After the Special Master issued his Report and Recommendation, in addition to its objections, OSU filed a Motion for Leave to Amend its Motion to Dismiss that the Speci al Master had already considered in his Report and R ecommenda tion. On January 17, 2023, Requester filed a co mbined Response to OSU ’ s Motion for Leave and Motion to Strike it , again requesting sanctions and attorneys ’ fees

. Although OSU asserts in its Motion for Leave that “[ n ] ew informatio n has been uncovered ” that makes it “necessary for B rett Scarb rough to clarify his prior affidavit [ , ] ” OSU does not explain why it could not have unco vered the new information in time to submit with its original Motion t o Dismiss. Furthermore, that does not justify why OSU seeks to submit the additional evidence with Scott Ha iner ’s affidavit. {¶11} Instead, it appears that OSU wants to retroactively re - tailor its arguments and the evidence su bmitted with its Motion to Dismiss in order to bolster its trade secr et s argument and the evidence in support thereof , which the Sp e c ial Master found to be ins ufficient in his Report and Recomme ndation. Such an amendment is contra ry to the

“ expeditious and economical procedure ” establishe d in R.C. 2743.75

. Moreover, when the Court is rev iewing objections to a special master ’s report and recommendation , “R.C. 2 74 3.75(F)(2) requires this court to functi on as a reviewing court for the purposes of d etermining the objections before it

. ” Gannett GP Media, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Pub

. Safety , Ct. of Cl. N o. 20 17

- 00051

- PQ , 201 7

- Ohio

- 4248 , ¶ 8. “ ‘ [A] reviewing court cannotCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 5

- DECISION AND ENTRY

add matter to the record b efore it that was not a part of the trial court ’ s proceedings, and then decide th e appeal on the basis of the new matter. ’ ” Id

. , quoting State v. Ishmail , 5 4 Ohio St.3d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500 (19 78). The refore, OSU ’ s Motion for Leave to Amend its Motion to Dismiss is DENIED

. However , s eeking leave of Court d oes not amount to the conduct pro scribed by Civ.R. 12(F) or R.C. 2323.51(A)( 2)(a), as described above. The refore, Requester ’ s January 17, 2023 Motion to Strike OSU ’ s Motion for Leave is also DENIED

. {¶12} On January 17, 2023, in addition to f iling a Response to OSU ’s objections, Re queste r moved to strike the objections because OSU failed to comply w ith R.C. 2743.75(F), which required OSU to serve its ob jections upon Requester by certified mail, return receipt requested. Requester ’s Motion to Strike the objections is unpersuasive for two reasons. First , as discussed above, R.C. 2743.75 is intended to provide a n expeditious and economical procedure , a nd there is no provision in R.C. 2743.75 that allows a par ty to move to strike another party ’s objections to a report and recommendation

. Second, it “ is a fundamental tenet o f judicial review in Ohio that courts should decide cases on the merits

. ” De Hart v . Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 69 Ohio St.2d 189, 192, 431 N.E.2d 644 (1982)

. N otwithstanding that R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) requires service of an objection by certified mail, return r eceipt requested , it appears that Re q uester received OSU ’ s objections, as evidenced by Requester filing a R esponse thereto. Therefore, Requ ester was not pr ejudiced by OSU ’ s failure to serve its obje c tions via certified mail,

r eturn receipt requested. Accordingly, Requester ’ s Motion to Strike OSU ’ s Objections is DENIED. The Court wil l no w co nsider the parties ’ objecti o ns.

B. Sta ndard {¶13} U nder Ohio law , a requester “ must establi sh entitlement to relief in an action fi led in the Court of Claims under R.C. 27 43.75 by clear and convinc i ng evidence

. ” V i ola v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor ’ s Offic e , 8th Dist. C uyahoga N o. 1 10 315 , 2021

- Ohio

- 42 10, ¶ 1 6 , citing Hurt v. Liberty Twp. , 2017

- Ohi o - 7 820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27

- 30 (5th Di s t.)

. See Welsh

- H uggi

ns v. Jefferson C ty. Prosecu tor ’ s Office , 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020

- Ohio

5371, 170 N.E.3d 76 8, ¶ 32

. I t is t he r eq u est er ’s burd en t o pro ve, by clear a nd c on v incingCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 6

- DECISION AND ENTRY

evidence, that the requested reco rds exi st and are public records mainta ined b y t he

r espond ent

. See State ex re l. Cordell v. Paden , 15 6 Ohi o St .3d 394, 2019

- Ohio

- 121 6, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 8

. {¶14} A pu b lic

- records cu stodian h as t he bu rden to establ ish the applic abil ity of an exception to disclo sur e of a public rec ord

. State ex rel. Cinc innati Enquir er v. Jones

Kelley , 1 18 Ohio St. 3d 81, 2008

- Oh io

- 1 770, 886 N.E.2d 206, paragraph t wo of the
s y llabus. In J on es - Kell ey , the Ohio Supr eme C ourt hel d:

Exceptions to disclosu re under the Public Records Act , R.C. 149.43, a re stri ctly con strued aga inst the publ ic

- records custodian, and the custodian has the b u rden to establis h the applicability of an exception. A c ustodian does not meet th is b urd en if it has not prov en that the requested records fall squarely within the exce ption. ( State ex rel

. Car r v . A kron, 1 12 Ohio St.3d 351, 20 06 Ohio 671 4, 859 N.E.2d 948, P 30, followed.) Id

.

C. OSU ’ s First Objection {¶15} For its f i rst objection, OSU states : “ The Requ ester did not meet its ‘ clear and convincing ’ burden of proof to demonstrate that the requested Faculty and Staff cell phone numbers and email addresses are ‘ public ’ records, so the Special Master ’ s Report and Recommendation should be overruled on this ground. ” {¶16} OSU argues that the faculty and staff cell phone numbers and emai l addresses are not public records because th at information was being maintained by OSU merely for administrative convenience . OSU cites State ex r el. Dispatch Printing Co . v. Johnson , 106 Ohio St.3d 160 , 2005

- Ohio

- 4 38 4 , 833 N.E .2d 274. In Dispatch Printing , the Ohio Supreme Court decided that the hom e addresses of state em ployees were not publi c records

— despite being contained in many publ ic records

— because the evidence submitted did n ot es tablish that the addresses “ ‘ document the organization, functions, p olicies, decisions , procedures, operation s, or other activities ’ of the state agencies withinCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 7

- DECISION AND ENTRY

the meaning of R.C. 149.011(G). ” Dispatch Printing at ¶ 25, quoting R.C. 149 .011 (G). I nstead , the “ home addresses repre sent contact information used as a matter of administrative convenience. ” Disp atch Printing at ¶ 25

. {¶17} However, in this case, OSU does not maintain t he faculty and staff ’ s information because they are its employees, but rather because OSU has entered into a financial transaction with them. T hese financial transactions , combined with the other tickets OSU sells , contribute to “ substantial rev enues, which are in turn used to provide athletic scholarships for its student

- athle tes. ” ( Scarbrough Aff., ¶ 16.) 1 “ This ticket
rev enue supports one of the cor e missions of the University, provi ding a first

- class educ ation and financial assistance to students when possible. ” ( Id .) Th erefore, the faculty and staff cell phone numbers and email addresses are not merely kept for administra tive convenience. {¶18} OSU also argues that the tickets are lice nse s to use the seats, not contracts

. In Education Association , a common pleas court concluded, based o n Dispatch Printing , that the personal contact information of licensees was not a record for public record purposes

. Ohio Ed

n . Ass n

. v. Ohio State Dept. of Ed n

. , Franklin C .P. No. 09CVH

- 17023 , 2010 Ohio Misc. L EXIS 22538 , 6

- 7

. However, the Court finds that the financial transaction of buying a ticket is more similar to a contract than it is to the administrativ e licensing scheme in Education Association

. A one - t i me license to use a seat is closer to a financial transaction t han a license permitting a teacher to teach children in the state. Therefore, the Court is not persua ded by OSU ’ s argument. {¶19} This case is more similar to State e x r el. Harper v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District , 5th Dist. Tuscarawa s No. 2013 AP 06 0024, 2014

- Ohio

- 1122. In Harper , the Fifth District Court of Appeals declined to expand D i spatch Printing to shield the addresses of peop le leasing property from the respondent conservancy distr ict. The Fi fth District specifically noted that the Ohio Supreme Court stated in Dispatch Printing that it “ ‘ will reject as unpersuasive t he arguments of governmental b odies in future cases attempting to place great weight on this case as precedent in unre lated contexts. ’ ” Harper

1 Scarbrough ’ s original affidavit, filed N ovember 1 6, 2023.Case No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 8

- DECISION AND ENTRY

at ¶ 7 , quoting Dispatch Printing , 106 Ohio St.3d 160 , 2005

- Ohio

- 4 38 4 , 833 N.E .2 d 274 , at ¶ 41

. The Fifth District further reason ed that (1) a “ lessee would not have the same expectation of pr ivacy as an employee because a les se e is conducting business with the District ” and (2) “ the addresses being sought do document at least one of the functions of the District which is to enter into rental contracts and collect rents from the l essees

. ” Harper at ¶ 9. Th e s ame rea so ning appl ies here . The ticket bu yer is engaged in a financial transaction with OSU, and selling tickets is a functio n of OSU ’ s athletic department

. Therefore , the Court concludes that the faculty and staff cell phone numbers and email addresses are public records. A ccordingly , OSU ’ s f irst o bjection is OVERRULE D.

D. Requester ’ s First Objection {¶20} For his first objection, Requester states that he object s to “ [t]he Special Master ’ s finding that physical addresses need not be turned over because they are not

‘ records ’ under R.C. 149.011(G). ” Req uester argues that the physical addresses are integrated into the contract, docume nt OSU ’ s billing practices, documents how OSU communicates with ticketholders, and are donor records that are otherwise subject to disclosure. However, Requester did not submit a fully integrated contract between OSU and a ticket holder in support of his argument s that the tickethold ers ’ physical addresses are part of the contract or document OSU ’ s billing practices and communicati ons

. {¶21} Instead, he cites three exhibits that he submitted to the Special Master. Requester ’ s Exh. 8 is a n OSU polic y titled Oh io State Football 2023 Faculty and Sta ff Ticket Information

. Requester points to a section of the exhibit titled Eligibility, in which for m er faculty and staff who hav e 25 or more years of service with the university and who did not purchase tickets fo r the 2 022 football season are instructed to provide their full name, OSU employee ID number, home address, mobile phone, email address, an d de partment. In context, it seems that this information is being requested so that the university can determine if the t icket buy er is eligible to purchase tickets. The policy does not request that the other groups of eligible ticket buyers provide their physical addressesCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 9

- DECISION AND ENTRY

or other information to determine eligibility. Requester ’ s Exh s . 9 and 10 are Ticketmaster ’ s Privacy Policy and Terms of U se. {¶22} Upon review of the evidence and Requester ’ s arguments, Requester has not proven by clear and convincing evidenc e that the ticke tholders physical addresses serve

“ to document th e organization, functions, policies, decisions, pro cedures, operations, or other activities of the office. ” R.C. 149.011(G). Req uester ’ s evidence indicates that OSU has switched to electronic ticketing and no longer mails tickets to ticketholder s ’ physical addresses : 2 “ All tickets for the 2023 Ohio State Football season tickets wil l be mobile. ” (Emphasis deleted.) (Reque ster ’ s Exh . 8 .) The evidence further indicates that communications b etween OSU and its ticketholders are via email: “ Please keep the email address on your account pro file current to en sure that you r eceive season renewal notices and other ticket information

. ” (Emphasis deleted.) (Requester ’ s Exh. 8 .) {¶23} Req uester has shown that OSU requests t he physical addresses for a subset of tickethol ders

— former faculty or staff who have at least 25 years of service and did not purchase 2022 season tickets

— but that is likely a small fraction of the tot al number of ticketholders. Furthermore , Requester has not shown that OSU uses the physical addresses of this s ubset of ticketholders as part of its f unctions , operations , or other activit i es

. 3 See State ex re l . Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan , 127 Ohio St.3d 236 , 2010

- Ohi o - 5680, 938 N.E.2d 347 ( a document does not become a public record when a public office merely rec eives it but does not use or rely on it to perform a public function ). But even if Reque ster had shown that OSU uses the physical addresses of this sub set of ticket holders, that would not prove how the addresses of all ticketholders document the functions , operations , or other activities of OSU. T herefore, Requester ’ s first objection is OVERRULED.

2 Requester speculates that some tickets may still be mailed to physical addresses, but he has not submitted evidence in support of his speculation

. The evidence submitted shows that Reques ter asked for the mailing addresses of all faculty and staff ticket holders who receive tickets via USPS first class mail, but the evidence does not show that any tickets were mailed via USPS

.

3 Requester ’s Exh s. 9 and 10 indicate that Ticketmaster may use physi cal addresses for billing purpose s, but that does not show h ow OSU uses the ticketholders ’ physical addresses. I f anything, these exhibits suggest that OSU d oes not handle the billing process , so OSU would not need the physical addresses for billing purpos es.Case No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 10

- DECISION AND ENTRY

E. OSU ’ s Second Objection {¶24} For its second ob jection, OSU states: “ Requester has not met its burden to demonstrate it is en t itled to Trade Secret information becau se the Unive rsity ’ s evidence satisfies all five Besser factors. ” As a preliminary matter, OSU is incorrect to frame this as a matter in which Respondent has the bu rden of proof. “ Exceptions to disclosu re under the Public Records Act , R.C. 149.43, a re stri ctly con strued aga inst the publ ic

- re cords custodian, and the custodian has the b u rden to establis h the applicability of an exception. A c ustodian does not meet th is b urd en if it has not prov en that the requested records fall squarely within the exce ption

. ” Jones

- Kelly , 1 18 Ohio St. 3d 81, 2008

- Oh io

- 1 770, 886 N.E.2d 206, at paragraph t wo of the s y llabus. Therefore, OSU has the burden of showin g that the requested records fall s q uarely within the trade secret exception. {¶25} When analyzing a trade secret claim , courts consider the following Besse r fa ct ors:

“ ‘ (1) The extent to which the information is known outside the business; (2) the extent to which it is known to those inside the business, i.e., by the employees; (3) t he precautions taken by the holder of the trade secret to guard the secrecy of t he information; (4) the savings effected and the value to the holder in having the information as against competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended in obtaining and developing the information; and (6) the amount of time and expense it would tak e for others to acquire and duplicate the information

. ’ ” Sal emi v. Cleveland Metroparks , 145 Ohio St.3d 408 , 2016

- Ohio

- 1192, 49 N.E.3d 1296, ¶ 25 , quo ting State ex rel. Lu ken v. Corp. for Findlay Mkt. of Cincinnati , 135 Ohio St.3d 41 6, 2013

- Ohio

- 1532, 988 N. E .2d 546 , ¶ 17, quoting State ex rel. Besse r v. Ohio State Univ. , 89 Ohio St.3d 396 , 399

- 400 , 2000

- Ohio

- 207, 732 N.E.2d 373 ( further citations
om itted ). {¶26} One of the reasons w hy the Spe cial Master concluded that OSU failed to establish that the list of season ticket holders was entitled to trade s ecret protection was because “ OSU ’s submissions acknowledge that it disclosed the information at issue toCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 11

- DECISION AND ENTRY

Ticketmaster, but OSU has provided no evidence that it did so under conditions restricting Ticketmaster ’s use of the information. ” (Report and Recommendat ion, p . 10.) In an attempt to provid e e vidence that it restricted Ticketmaster ’s use of the information, OS U moved for leave to amend its M otion to D ismiss to include new information, including new affidavit s and exhibits

. T he Court denied the motion to amend above. {¶27} Examining only t he evidence tha t was before the Special Master, the Court comes to the same c onclu sion tha t OSU did not sh ow that it imposed any restrictions upon Ticket master when it disclosed the list to Ticketmaster. 4 This failure to demonstr ate restrictions on the sharing of the information is sufficien t to deprive OSU of trade secret protection. See Budson v. City of Cleveland , Ct. of Cl. No. 2018

- 00300PQ , 2 019

- Ohio

963 (trade secret protection denied because city did not de monstrate that it restrict ed Amazon or city ’ s partner entit ies from disclosing any or all of the bid document ). Moreover , as noted by the Special Master, the statements in the Sc arbrough affidavit that

w as before the Special Master were largely conclusory and did not pr o vide sufficient detail as to the amount of effort or money expended in developing the list of season ticket holders. For these reasons , OSU ’s second objection is OVERRULED.

F. Requester ’ s Second Objection {¶28} For his second objection, Reque ster states that he objects to “ [t]he Special Master ’ s finding that R equester may not cover statutory damages and attorneys ’ fees. ” Requester specifies that he objects that the Special Master did not award attorneys ’ fees pursuan t to R.C. 2323.51 for preparation of the M otio n to S trike OSU ’ s Reply brief. As analyzed above, the Court agrees that sanctions and attorneys ’ fees are not warranted. {¶29} Re garding Requester ’ s request for stat utory damages, this Court has
co nsistently interpreted R.C. 2743.75 to not include statutory damages

. See, e.g., Ass. O f Cleveland Fire Fighters IAFF Local 93 v. City of Cleveland , Ct. of Cl. No. 2020

- 00103PQ , 2020

- Ohio

- 4500, ¶ 10, adopted 2020

- Ohio

- 4902 ; Ryan v. City of Ashtabula , Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2022

- 00660PQ, 2022

- 00665PQ , and 2022

- 00 680PQ, 2023

- Ohio

- 621 , ¶

4 The Court reaches this conclusion without reliance o n the Ticketmaster policies provided by Requester.Case No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 12

- DECISION AND ENTRY

23, adopted 2023

- Ohio

- 1487. The Court declines to dev iate from this well

- establ ished precedent. The refore, Requester ’ s second objection i s OVERRULED.

III. Conclusio n {¶30} For the reasons set forth above, the Court OVERRULES Req uester ’s
o bjections , OVERRULES Respondent ’s objections , and ADOPTS the Special Master ’ s Report and Recommendation

. Respondent ’ s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Responde nt ’ s Motion for Leave to Amend its Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. All motion s to strike are DENIED. Any other pending miscellaneous motions not explicitly granted elsewhere by the Court o r Special Master are DENIED

. {¶31} The Court ORDERS Respondent to produce un redacted copies of all
recor ds responsive to the public records requests Respondent de nominated as 23

- 721, 23

- 385, 23

- 9 59, 23

- 961, a n d 24

- 004 , except for pp. 82

- 87, ro ws 5222

- 5581 , and pp. 232

- 233, rows 49 0 7

- 4956 o f the In Camera Records

. and all other portions of other records that have those characteristics that are responsive to Requester ’ s requests. Respond ent is permitted to redact information about ticketholder s ’ OSU identification numbers and physical addresses. The Court DEN I ES other relief sought by Requester. {¶32} Requester is entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty

- fi ve dollars and any other cost s a ssociated with the action that are incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees. Court costs are assessed against Respondent. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon th e journal

.

D AVID E. CAIN Judge

Filed Ja nuary 30 , 202 4 Sent to S.C. Rep orter 2 / 15 /2 4