[Cite as Jones v. Dept. of Youth Serv. , 2024

- Ohio

- 815.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} In this public

- records case, Respondent objects, in part, to a Special Master ’ s Report and Recommendation (R& R)

. Requester did not file objections or respond to Respondent ’ s objection

. The Court sustains Respondent ’ s objection for reasons that
fol low

.

I. Background {¶2} On September 26, 2023, Requester filed a p ublic

- records complaint in which Requester alleges :

October 4 th 2022 a request was made and October 28th 2022 a request was made. A response from Jacqulyn Doblinger was returned saying that she received the request but not one record was provided since I made the request .. I uploaded 16 emails in correspondence with emails asking for updates on the request, she responded to some emails but ignored the rest ...

. It’s been 11 month s and not one request was m ade and I have email asking for the request. There wa s also no denial email in regards to the records requ est. (Co m plaint, Sept. 26, 2023. ) {¶3} The Court appointed a Special Master who did not refer the matter to
mediation because he “ [f ound] that
, based on the length of time that Requester ’ s public records request has been pending
, and the additional time that mediation would involve
, MARCUS JONES
Requester

v.

DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES
Respondent Case No. 2023

- 00633PQ
Judge Lisa L. Sa d ler

DECISION AND ENTRYCase No. 2023

- 00633PQ

- 2

- DECISION & ENTRY

mediation will not result in the expeditious resolution envisioned by R.C. 2743

. 75(A). ” (Scheduling Order, Oct. 3, 2023.) The Special Master did, however, establish deadlines for briefing and filing of evidence

. ( Id.) {¶4} On November 30, 202 3 , the Special M aster issued a Report and Recommendation. The Special Master recommends that (1) “ Respondent be ordered to produce unredacted c opies of pp. 779, 779 [sic] , 784

- 786, 791

- 793, 858

- 860, and 864

- 866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence ; ” (2) “ Requester recover his filing fee and
costs ; ” (3) “ Respondent bear the balance of the costs of this case ; ” and (4) “ [a ] ll other relief be denied

. ” (R&R, 8.) {¶5} On December 15, 2023, Respondent, thro ugh c ounsel, filed a written obje ct ion to the Report and Recomm e ndation

. Accor ding to a Certificat e of Service accompanying the objection
, Requester ’ s counse l sent a copy of Responde nt ’ s objection to Req uester by email and certified mail, return receipt requested

.

II. La w 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 the enact m ent of R.C. 2743. 75

. W e lsh

- Hug gin s v. Jeffe rso n Cty . Prose cutor ’ s O f

fice
, 163 O hio St. 3d 337, 2020

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

. E .3d 76 8
, ¶ 1 1

. S e e R .C. 2743.75 (A). U nder Ohio law a requester “ must establi sh entitlement to relief in
an action fi led in the Court of Clai ms under R.C. 2743.75 by clear and convincing evidence

. ” V iola v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor ’ s Offi c e , 8th Dist. C uyahoga
N o. 1 1 03 15 , 2021

- Ohio

- 42 1 0, ¶ 1 6 , citing Hurt v. Liberty Twp. , 2017

- Ohi o
- 7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27

- 30 (5th Dis t.)

. See Welsh

- Huggi ns v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecuto r ’ s Office
, 1 63 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020

- O hio

- 5 371, 170 N.E.3d 76 8, ¶ 32

. I t is a r eq u est er ’s
burd en t o pro ve, by clear a nd con v i ncing evidenc e, that the r equested reco rds exi st and are public records mainta ined by a r espondent

. S ee State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden , 15 6 Ohio St .3d 394, 2019

- Ohio

- 1 2 1 6, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 8

. {¶7} A pu b lic

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

. State ex rel. Cinc innati Enquirer v. Jones

Kelley , 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008

- Oh i o
- 1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, p aragr aph t wo of the
sy llabus. In Jones

- Kell ey , the O hio Supr eme C ourt held:Case No. 2023

- 00633PQ

- 3

- DECISION & ENTRY

Exception s to disclosu re under the Pu blic Records Act, R.C. 149.43, a re strictly construed aga inst the public

- reco rds custodian, and the custodian has the burden to establis h the

a p plicability of an exception. A c ustodian does not meet this
bu rd en if it has no t prov en that the requested records fall squarely within the exce ption. ( State ex rel

. Car r v

. Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351, 2006 Ohio 6714, 859 N.E.2d 9 48, P 30, followed.)
K ell ey at pa ragraph two of the syllabu s. {¶8} Respondent objec ts to the recommendation to produ ce unredacted copies of any documents containing employee identification (ID) number s on grounds that the employee identification numbers are “security records” sub ject to R.C. 149.433 (Objection , 1)
, and alternatively , on g rounds that its employee ID numbers “should be
withhe ld from public records under R.C. 130 6.23

. ” (Objectio n , 3.) Respondent ’ s objecti on is accompanied by an affid avit of Kimberle Iquina , and employee of Respondent. Respondent asks t hat it “ not be requi red to produce unredacted copies of pp. 784

- 786, 791

- 793, 858

- 860, and 864

- 866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evide nce

. ” (Objection , 4.) {¶9} The Court will first consider Res pondent ’ s second argument, that the employee ID numbers should be withheld from the public under R.C

. 1306.23. In a n af fida vit 1 accompany in g Respondent ’ s objection , Ms. Kimberle Iquina, who is employed by Respondent in the Division of Legal Services a s a Program Administrator 2 , avers , that (1) , when she started her emplo y ment with the St at e of Ohio, she was assigned an

em pl oyee identification number (Affidavit, ¶ 3), (2) he r employee ID number is her username for many, if not all, the information technology har dware, software and applicati ons that she use s on a daily basis as an employee of Respondent (Affidavit, ¶ 4), (3) her employee ID is her username to log on t o her employer issued laptop and Respondent ’ s virtual pr ivate network (VPN) when working remotely (Aff id avit, ¶ 5), (4)

1 Requester did not object to the submi ssion of the affidavit or any other part of Res po n dent ’ s objection

.Case No. 2023

- 00633PQ

- 4

- DECISION & ENTRY

she uses her username to log on to Respo ndent ’ s secure wire less network when working
in the of fice ( Id. ), (5) her employee ID is also her username for Respondent ’ s Juvenile Justice Case Managemen t System and OnBase (document managemen t system), which
contain s con fidentia l youth information and records protected by R.C. 5139.05(D) ( Id. )
and (6) he r employee ID is also her username for myOhi o.gov, which she uses to access her timesheet (Kronos), view her paycheck, update her personal information, and manage
h er benefits. (Affidavit, ¶ 5.) {¶10} R.C . 1306.23 provides: “ Re cords that would disclos e or may le ad to the
disc losure of records or information that would je opard ize the state ’ s continued use or security of any computer or telecommunicati ons devices or services asso ciated with electronic signatures , electronic records, or electronic transacti ons are not public records for purposes of [R.C. 149.43]. ” Because the employe e ID numbers are used as the employee ’ s user names as part of the security for Respo nd ent ’ s computer systems , th e employee ID numbers are ex empt from di sclosure pursuant to R.C. 1306.23

. This is in

a ccordance with Special Master ’ s decision that “ usernames are therefore exempted from public record status by R.C

. 1306.23. ” 2 (R&R, p. 6.) Therefore, Res pondent ’ s objection is SUSTAINED. {¶11} B ecause the Court has decided that the emplo yee ID numbers are exempt from public records status under R.C

. 1306.23, the Court need not consider whether the employee ID numbers are also exempt as security records pursuant to R.C. 149.433

. See Ci t y o f Grove City v

. Clark , 1 0th Di st. Franklin No. 01AP

- 1369, 2 002

- Ohio

- 4549, ¶ 11 (action s or op inio ns are moot w h en they have becom e fictit io us , colora ble
, hypothetical, academic or dead) ; see also State ex rel. Karm asu v. Tate , 8 3 Ohio App.3d 199, 205,
614 N.E.2d 8 27 (4th Dist.1992) citing Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth

. , 4th Dis t. Ross No. 1790, at 4

- 5, 1992 WL 97805 (May 11, 1992) ( a t rial court “ is not required to consider any legal theory, or argument, beyond that which will adequately dispose o f the
case at hand ” )

. Acco rd PDK Lab o ratories, I nc. v. Unit e d States Drug Enfo rceme nt Administra tion ( D.C. Ci r. 2004) , 36 2 F.3d 786, 799, 360 U.S. App. D.C. 344 ( Roberts, J.
,

2 I t appear s that R e spondent did not inform the Special Master that its employees use their ID numbers as usernames for ce rtain computer systems

.Case No. 2023

- 00633PQ

- 5

- DECISION & ENTRY

concurri ng in part and co n cur ring in judgme nt) (e xpressin g “ th e card i nal principle of j udic ia l restr aint
, ” i.e.
, “ if it i s not necessary to deci de more, it is nece ssary not to dec ide

more ” )

.

III. Conclusion {¶12} The Court SUSTAINS Respondent ’ s objection fo r the reasons set forth
above . The Court ado pt s, in part, and rejects, in part, the Special Master ’ s Report and
Recom mendation. Specifically, t he Cou rt does not adopt t he Special Master ’ s

re commendation that unredacted copies of pp. 779, 784

- 786, 791

- 7 93, 858

- 860, and 864

- 866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence shoul d be produced to Requester

. The Court ORDERS that (1) Respondent may redact employee ID numbers contained in pp. 779,
784

- 786, 791

- 793, 858

- 860, and 864

- 866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence in its production of records t o Requester, (2) Respondent shall continue to produce the requested videos as expe ditiously as possible, 3 ( 3 ) Reque st er i s entitled to recover from
R espondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty

- five dollars an d any ot her costs

ass oci ated with the act ion that are incurre d by t he Req ue ster , exc epting attorney fe es , and ( 4 ) c ourt costs a r e assessed against Respondent

. {¶13} The C ler k s ha ll se rve upon all p arties notice of this judgment an d its date o f

e ntry upon the journ al

.

LISA L. SADLER Judge

Filed February 8 , 202 4 Sent to S.C. Reporter 3 / 7 /2 4

3 T h e Special Master noted that the production of the video records ha d not yet bee n completed at the time of the Report and Recommendation, but he did not order a timeline for the remainder o f the video production. (R&R, 1, 8.) N ever theless, the S p e cial Ma ster rejected Respo ndent ’ s jus t ifications for the delays in proce ssing the video records (R&R, 7) and R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires that records be made available within a reasonab le period of time

— which has already been exceeded

. No objections were filed regarding the production of the videos.