[Cite as Morrison v. Law Dir. of Mt. Vernon, 2022-Ohio-1617.]

{¶1} The Ohio Public Records Act (PRA) requires copies of public records to be 

made available to any person upon request. The state policy underlying the PRA is that 

open government serves the public interest and our democratic system. State ex rel. 

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Petro, 80 Ohio St.3d 261, 264, 685 N.E.2d 

1223 (1997). To that end, the public records statute must be construed liberally in favor 

of broad access, with any doubt resolved in favor of disclosure of public records. State ex 

rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545, 2018-Ohio-5111, 122 N.E.3d 

1208, ¶ 6. This action is filed under R.C. 2743.75, which provides an expeditious and 

economical procedure to enforce the PRA in the Court of Claims.

{¶2} On July 21, 2021, requester Joshua Morrison made a public records request

to the Clerk of Council of the City of Mount Vernon seeking

access to and a copy of All emails, communications and call logs of Mayor 

Matthew Starr, Safety Service Director Rick Dzik, City Council members, 

Bruce E. Hawkins, John Francis, Mike Hillier, Julia Warga, Janis Seavolt, 

Amber Keener, Tammy Woods and Samantha Scoles and including former 

City Council member Tanner Salyers regarding the recent suspension and 

no confidence vote of the Safety Service Director. If your agency does not 

maintain these public records, please let me know who does and include 

the proper custodian’s name and address.

(Complaint at 3.) On September 17, 2021, respondent Law Director for Mount Vernon 

Robert Broeren, Jr., (Broeren) emailed Morrison a link to a Dropbox file containing 

JOSHUA DAVID MORRISON

 Requester

 v. 

LAW DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF 

MOUNT VERNON

 Respondent

Case No. 2022-00023PQ

Special Master Jeff Clark

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2022-00023PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

documents responsive to the request. (Reply at 6.) On September 27, 2021, Morrison 

sent an email advising Broeren that he believed the text message records of former 

councilmember Tanner Salyers had been omitted from this production. (Id. at 7.) Broeren 

responded that Salyers had “personally carried his cell phone records to my office and 

they were included in the produced records.” (Id. at 9.)

{¶3} On January 11, 2022, Morrison filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging 

denial of access to public records, specifically:

I didn’t receive the text messages of Councilmember Tanner Salyers. The

records and text messages from Salyers to Councilmember Mike Hillier 

were not fulfilled. Mr. Hillier’s text messages were included, indicating that 

Salyers and Hillier had a conversation.

(Complaint at 1.) Following unsuccessful mediation, Broeren filed an answer (Response) 

on March 24, 2022. On April 4 and April 12, 2022, Morrison filed a reply and a supplement 

to the reply. 

Burden of Proof

{¶4} A requester must establish a public records violation by clear and convincing 

evidence. Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 (5th Dist.). The

requester must plead and prove facts showing he sought an identifiable public record

from a public office pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public office did not make 

the record available. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 

337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 33. Broeren advised Morrison that he searched 

for, located, and produced all requested records. (Reply at 9.) A requester challenging 

such an assertion must show by clear and convincing evidence that one or more

additional responsive records exists and was not made available. State ex rel. Cordell v. 

Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 5-10.

Records Made Available

{¶5} Morrison claims that he “didn’t receive the text messages of Councilmember 

Tanner Salyers.” It is not clear whether Morrison is 1) claiming that non-identical text 
Case No. 2022-00023PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

messages of Salyers exist that were not contained in the provided text messages of

council member Hillier, or 2) asking that a copy of identical text messages be made from 

both Hillier’s and Salyers’ cell phones. This report will address both possible meanings of 

Morrison’s claim.

{¶6} In his abbreviated response Broeren broadly denies Morrison’s claim without

providing the court with any affidavit, evidence, explanation of factual background, or legal 

authority. (Response, passim.) See State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 

2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 5, 9; State, ex rel. Bloodworth v. Toledo Corr. Inst., 

6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1146, 2022-Ohio-346, ¶ 4-7; and Ohio Records Analysis v. Ohio 

Dept. of Admin. Servs., Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00385PQ, 2022-Ohio-316, ¶ 7, 10 for 

examples of public offices giving useful explanations of the non-existence of additional 

records. See also R.C. 149.43(B)(3). 

{¶7} Taking assertion No. 2 first, it is axiomatic that there is no duty to reproduce 

every separate office copy of a requested record in response to a public records request. 

The disclosure of a single record copy is usually sufficient to satisfy a communication 

request if it contains all the message text, and the identities of the correspondents are 

known. Although copies in the hands of other correspondents may contain different 

metadata,

1

that information does not itself constitute a “record” unless it also “serves to 

document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or 

other activities of the office.” R.C. 149.011(G). A public office has no duty to produce 

incidental non-record information merely because a requester expresses an interest in it.

Only if another copy of the correspondence contains additional record information, for 

example marginal notes or metadata that themselves meet the R.C. 149.011(G) definition 

1

“Metadata is ‘[s]econdary data that organize, manage, and facilitate the use and understanding 

of primary data.’ Black's Law Dictionary 1080 (9th Ed. 2009).” State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. 

Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139, 2012-Ohio-4246, 976 N.E.2d 877, ¶ 19. Examples include mailing 

envelopes and electronic mail headers.
Case No. 2022-00023PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

of a record, must that information be provided as well. See Bello v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. 

& Corr., Ct. of Cl. 2020-00129PQ, 2020-Ohio-4559, ¶ 8-11. Here, Morrison does not 

explain how copying an identical Salyers/Hillier text exchange from Salyers’ device would 

provide an additional record documenting the decisions, operations, or other activities of 

the City of Mt. Vernon. Finally, even if the text metadata did contain record information,

Morrison did not ask for metadata in his request and was thus not entitled to it. State ex 

rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139, 2012-Ohio4246, 976 N.E.2d 877, ¶ 19-21.

{¶8} As to assertion No. 1, Morrison did not dispute Broeren’s emailed explanation 

that former councilmember Salyers brought his cell phone in and produced responsive 

records from it. Morrison instead expressed suspicion that metadata in a provided 

screenshot could have been “misrepresented” and that having another screenshot from 

Salyers’ phone “would validate and corroborate the conversation.” (Reply at 11.) Notably, 

the screenshot at Reply p. 11 includes what appears to be source-identifying metadata: 

“Tanner Sa ...” and “TS” and “Mobile.” While Broeren fails to address Morrison’s 

accusation that this information could be fabricated, the special master declines to accept

mere suspicion as evidence that the screenshot is not part of the records from Salyers’ 

cell phone that Broeren said he had obtained and delivered to Morrison.

{¶9} Morrison alternatively infers from the wording of the screenshot the existence 

and withholding of additional texts between Salyers and Hillier. However, once Broeren

asserted that all requested text communication between the two had been provided, 

Morrison had the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that additional text 

communication existed. Cordell v. Paden at ¶ 5-10; Bello at ¶ 10. Morrison’s assertion

that the question in the screenshot about “[t]he meeting you had in the hall prior to the 

meeting” implies a “subsequent conversation” is not persuasive, much less conclusive, of 

the existence of an additional written text message rather than a later verbal conversation.

(Reply at 2-3, 11.)
Case No. 2022-00023PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

{¶10} Considering the evidence before the court, the special master finds Morrison

has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Broeren failed to produce any 

additional non-identical text message or other responsive record. 

Conclusion

{¶11} Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments the special master

recommends the court deny requester’s claim for production of additional records. It is 

recommended that costs be assessed to requester.

{¶12} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with 

the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this 

report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all 

grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption 

of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a 

timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).

JEFF CLARK

Special Master

Filed April 19, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/13/22