[Cite as Hicks v. Union Twp., Clermont Cty. Trustees , 2022

- Ohio

- 3558.]

{¶1} Requester Christopher Richard Hicks objects to a Specia l Master ’ s Report
and Recommendation in this public

- records case. B ecause the S pecial Master correctly applied statutory law and case law
, as they exist ed at the time of the filing of the Complaint
, to the facts of this case, the Court overrules Hicks ’ s o bj ections.

I. Bac kgroun d On May 11 , 2022, Hicks , a self

- represented litiga nt, filed a C omplai nt against Respondent Union Township , Cler m ont County, Trustees

. Hicks states in the Complaint :

I requested the distribution lists for township newsletters on Janua ry 12, 2022 (Exhibit 1). On January 26 my request was denied in full citing no statutory exemptions and three court cases (Exhibit 2). I aske d for
clarification of the complete denial on F ebruary 14 and April 26. I was denied again on May 10, 2022 (Exhibit 3 ). The township uses postal mail and email to distribute newsletters to some or all citizens in the township. The township maintains an on l ine to sign up to receive the newsletters via e mail (consisting of only name and email address).
* * * CHRISTOPHER RICHARD HICKS
Requester

v.
UNION TOWNSHIP, CLERMONT COUNTY, TRUSTEES
Respondent Case No. 2022

- 00408PQ
Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

DECISION AND ENTRYCase No. 2022

- 00408PQ

- 2

- DECI SION AND ENTRY

Requester as ks that the two requested distribution lists be provided in total or with limited redaction that may be supported by statute or
caselaw. {¶2} T h e Court app ointed a Spe cial Master who referred the ca se to mediation

. After mediation failed to succes sfully res o lve all disputed issues between the parties
, the
case was returned to the Spe cial Master ’ s docket

. {¶3} On August 16, 2022, the Special Master i s sued a Report an d
Recommen dation (R&R)

. T he Special Master “ [found] that disclosure of the names and/or addresses o f persons who automatically receive or have subscribed to the township newsl etter would not further the purposes of the [Ohio Public Re cord s ] Act. They would not help to monitor the conduct of township government and would re veal little or nothing about t h e agency or its activities

. ” (R&R, 5.) The Special Master
concluded
, “ On consideration of the plead ings and attachments, the Special Mast e r recommends the court deny the claim for production of records. It is recommended costs be assessed to requester

. ” (R&R, 5.) {¶4} On August 26, 2022, Hicks fil ed written objections to the Special Master ’ s R eport an d Reco mme ndation. Hicks certifies that he s e rv ed a copy of his objections to
R e spondent ’ s co u nsel “ via electronic mail, ” according to a certificate of ser vic e

a ccomp anying Hicks ’ s objections. {¶5} On September 7, 2022, Respondent , through counsel, responded to Hicks ’ s objections. Respondent ’ s cou nsel certifies that he serv ed a copy of Respondent ’ s
response to Hicks “ via email and certified United States mail, retu r n receipt requested

. ”
II. L aw and Analysis {¶6} The Gene ral Assembly created a n alternati ve means to resolve public

- r e co r ds disput e through the enactment of R.C. 2743.75

. W e lsh

- Huggin s v. Jefferso n Cty.
Prosecutor ’ s Office , 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020

- Oh i o
- 53 71, 17 0 N

. E.3d 768 , ¶ 1 1

. See R.C. 2743.75 (A). Under R.C. 2743.75 ( F)(1), not later than seven business days afterCase No. 2022

- 00408PQ

- 3

- DECI SION AND ENTRY

receiving a response of a public office or person responsible for public records , or a motion to dismiss a complaint, if applicable, a spe cial maste r is required to “ submit to the court of claims a report and recommend ation based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint. ” However, for good cause s hown, a special master “ may e x t end the seven

- day period for the submission of the report and recommendation to the court of claims under this division by an additional seven business days. ” R.C. 2743.75(F)(1). {¶7} R .C. 2743.75( F) (2) governs the filing of ob jections to a special master ’ s r e port and r e commendation

. U nder R.C. 2 743.75(F) (2), either par ty “may ob j ect to the r epo rt and recomm endati on withi n seven busin ess days after r ece ivin g the rep o r t a n d

recomm endat ion by fi ling a written objection w ith th e c le rk and send in g a co py to t he o t her
par t y b y ce rtified mail , r eturn r eceipt req uested. * * * I f either p a rty timely o bje cts, the othe r part y may fi l e with the c lerk a response wit hin seven bus i n es s da ys aft er re ceiving t he obj ection and send a c o py of the r esponse to th e obje cting p art y by c ert i fi e d ma il, return

r ece ipt req uested. T he court, withi n seven bu s ine ss days a fte r the respons e to t he objec t ion is filed , shall issue a fin al o rder that a do p t s, modif ies, or reject s the report and

recommen d ation. ” {¶8} H icks ’ s objections do not c omp l y with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) ’ s procedural require m ents , since, according to a certificate of ser vice accompanying Hicks ’ s ob jections
, Hicks failed to serve a copy of his objections by ce rtified mail, ret ur n receipt
req u ested
, a s required by R.C. 2743.75(F )(2 )

. The Co urt is co gnizant th at Hicks is a sel f

re prese nt ed l i t igant bu t, H icks nonetheless is required to follow pr ocedural law and court
rules. As the Tent h District Court of Appeals has explained
, W hile one has t he right to represent himself or her s elf a nd one ma y proceed
in to litigati on as a pro se litigant, th e pro se litigant is to be treated th e same

as on e trained in the l aw as f a r as the requirement t o follow procedural law
and the adherence to court ru les. If the co urts treat pro se litigantsCase No. 2022

- 00408PQ

- 4

- DECI SION AND ENTRY

dif f e rently, t he court beg ins to depa rt from its duty of imparti a lity and prejudices the handling of th e case as it relates to othe r liti g a nts represented by cou nsel

. Justice v. Lutheran Social Servs.
, 10th Dist. Frankl in No. 92 AP

- 1153 , 1993 Ohio App.
LEX I S 2 0 2 9, at *6 (Apr. 8, 1993)

. Accord State e x re l. Ful ler v. Me n gel

, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003

- Ohio

- 6 44 8, 800 N.E .2d 25, ¶ 10
, qu ot ing Sa b o uri v. Ohio De p t of Jo b & Family Serv s. , 145 Ohio App. 3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1 238 (2001 ) ( “ ‘ [i ]t is well establish e d t h a t
pro se litigants a re presumed to have know ledge of the la w and legal pro cedur es and that they ar e held to the same s tan dard as lit i g ants who are r e p r esent ed by counsel ’ ” )

. {¶9} Hicks maintains i s in his objections that the records that he seeks “ are the

re cords of a function of the Union Township govern ment that document who receives government

- approved c ommunications in the form of a newsletter as part of a recurring activity of the government that [he] seeks to m onito r

. ” H icks al so maintains that the S pe c ial Master ’ s adverse rec ommend ation and reason s in support thereof constitute

error. In opposition
, Respondent contends that the Spe cial Master correctly determined that the mailing lists sought by Requester are non

- records

. {¶10} Hicks ’s objections resolve t o this issue: wheth er the f ull email mailing list for Union Township ’ s newsletter and the full po stal ma il ing list for Union Townshi p ’ s newsletter (which are the subject of Hicks ’ s public

- recor ds requests in his Complaint ) are public records that are sub j e ct to di scl osure under R.C. 149.43

. {¶11} The Court determines that neither the emai l mailing list nor the full postal mailing list constitutes a public record subject to discl osure under R.C. 149.43

. For purposes of R.C. 149.43, a “ public rec ord ” “ means re c o rd s kept by any public office [.] ” R.C. 149.43(A)(1). Pursuant to R.C. 149.011(G ), as used in R .C. Chapter 149, “ records ”

“ incl udes any document, device, or item, regardless o f physical form or characteristic, including an electronic recor d as defined i n [R .C. 1306.01 ] , created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdi visions,Case No. 2022

- 00408PQ

- 5

- DECI SION AND ENTRY

which serves to do cument the organization , functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or o ther activitie s of the office. ” {¶12} F or Hicks to be successful in his objections , Hicks is req uired to establish
that the full email list used by Un ion Township and the full U. S. mailing list used by Union Township create a written reco rd of the structure, dut ies, gen eral m a n ag ement principles, agency determinations, s pecific methods, processes, or other acts of the Union
Towns hip

. See State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson , 106 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005

- Ohio

- 4384, 833 N.E.2d 274, ¶ 22

. In the Court ’ s view, neither the f u ll email list nor the
full postal . mai ling list documents the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operatio ns, or other activities of Union Township within the mean ing of R.C. 149.011(G)

. Rather
, the full email list and the full post a l m ailing list r epresent contact informat ion that Union Township us es as a matter of administrative convenience. See State ex re l. Dispatch Printing Co. , 106 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005

- Ohio

- 4384, at ¶ 25

. Such
a conclusion is consistent with the purpose of th e Public Records Act, “ ‘ which is to expose government activity to public scrutiny. ’ ” State ex re l. Dispatch Printing Co.
, at ¶ 2 7, quoting State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 101 Ohio St.3d 382, 2004

- Ohio

- 1581, ¶ 5
, 80 5 N.E.2d 1094; State ex rel. W HIO

- TV

- 7 v. Lowe , 77 Ohio St. 3d 350, 355, 1997 Ohio 271, 673 N.E.2d 1360 (1997)

. D isclos ure of the full email li st and the full postal mailing
list osten sibly would reveal little o r nothing about Union Township or its activities , unlike
Union Township ’ s n ewsletter s themselves

. Se e State ex rel . Dispatch Printing Co

. at ¶
27

. {¶13} Upon review, notwithstanding Hicks ’ s objections, the Court determ ine s that
the Spec ial M aster h as correctly applied statutory law and case law as they exist ed at the time of the fil in g of the C omplaint

. Hicks ’ s objections are not well taken.

III. ConclusionCase No. 2022

- 00408PQ

- 6

- DECI SION AND ENTRY

{¶14} The Court OVERRULES Hicks ’ s objections . The Court adopts the Special
Master ’ s R eport and Recom menda tion

. The Court denies Hicks ’ s claim for production of
records

. Court cos ts are a sse ssed to H icks

. T he C lerk shal l serve upon all parti es notic e of th is judgm ent and it s date of entr y upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Judge

Filed September 13 , 2022 Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/ 6 /22