[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 

follow.

I. Background

{¶2} On September 26, 2023, Requester filed a public-records complaint in which 

Requester alleges:

October 4th 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 months and not one request was made and 

I have email asking for the request. There was also no denial email in 

regards to the records request.

(Complaint, Sept. 26, 2023.)

{¶3} The Court appointed a Special Master who did not refer the matter to 

mediation because he “[found] 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. Sadler

DECISION AND ENTRY
Case 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, 2023, the Special Master issued a Report and 

Recommendation. The Special Master recommends that (1) “Respondent be ordered to 

produce unredacted copies 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, through counsel, filed a written 

objection to the Report and Recommendation. According to a Certificate of Service 

accompanying the objection, Requester’s counsel sent a copy of Respondent’s objection

to Requester by email and certified mail, return receipt requested.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶6} The General Assembly has created an alternative means to resolve publicrecords disputes through the enactment of R.C. 2743.75. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson 

Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11. 

See R.C. 2743.75(A). Under Ohio law a requester “must establish entitlement to relief in 

an action filed in the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.75 by clear and 

convincing evidence.” Viola v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 110315, 2021-Ohio-4210, ¶ 16, citing Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97 

N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 (5th Dist.). See Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s 

Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 32. It is a requester’s 

burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the requested records exist and 

are public records maintained by a respondent. See State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 

Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 8. 

{¶7} A public-records custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an 

exception to disclosure of a public record. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. JonesKelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, paragraph two of the 

syllabus. In Jones-Kelley, the Ohio Supreme Court held:
Case No. 2023-00633PQ -3- DECISION & ENTRY

Exceptions to disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 

149.43, are strictly construed against the public-records 

custodian, and the custodian has the burden to establish the 

applicability of an exception. A custodian does not meet this

burden if it has not proven that the requested records fall 

squarely within the exception. (State ex rel. Carr v. 

Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351, 2006 Ohio 6714, 859 N.E.2d 948, 

P 30, followed.)

Kelley at paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶8} Respondent objects to the recommendation to produce unredacted copies of 

any documents containing employee identification (ID) numbers on grounds that the 

employee identification numbers are “security records” subject to R.C. 149.433

(Objection, 1), and alternatively, on grounds that its employee ID numbers “should be 

withheld from public records under R.C. 1306.23.” (Objection, 3.) Respondent’s 

objection is accompanied by an affidavit of Kimberle Iquina, and employee of 

Respondent. Respondent asks that it “not be required to produce unredacted copies of

pp. 784-786, 791-793, 858-860, and 864-866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence.” 

(Objection, 4.)

{¶9} The Court will first consider Respondent’s second argument, that the

employee ID numbers should be withheld from the public under R.C. 1306.23. In an 

affidavit1 accompanying Respondent’s objection, Ms. Kimberle Iquina, who is employed 

by Respondent in the Division of Legal Services as a Program Administrator 2, avers, 

that (1), when she started her employment with the State of Ohio, she was assigned an 

employee identification number (Affidavit, ¶ 3), (2) her employee ID number is her

username for many, if not all, the information technology hardware, software and 

applications that she uses on a daily basis as an employee of Respondent (Affidavit, ¶ 4), 

(3) her employee ID is her username to log on to her employer issued laptop and 

Respondent’s virtual private network (VPN) when working remotely (Affidavit, ¶ 5), (4)

1 Requester did not object to the submission of the affidavit or any other part of Respondent’s 

objection.
Case No. 2023-00633PQ -4- DECISION & ENTRY

she uses her username to log on to Respondent’s secure wireless network when working 

in the office (Id.), (5) her employee ID is also her username for Respondent’s Juvenile 

Justice Case Management System and OnBase (document management system), which 

contains confidential youth information and records protected by R.C. 5139.05(D) (Id.) 

and (6) her employee ID is also her username for myOhio.gov, which she uses to access 

her timesheet (Kronos), view her paycheck, update her personal information, and manage 

her benefits. (Affidavit, ¶ 5.)

{¶10} R.C. 1306.23 provides: “Records that would disclose or may lead to the 

disclosure of records or information that would jeopardize the state’s continued use or 

security of any computer or telecommunications devices or services associated with 

electronic signatures, electronic records, or electronic transactions are not public records 

for purposes of [R.C. 149.43].” Because the employee ID numbers are used as the 

employee’s usernames as part of the security for Respondent’s computer systems, the 

employee ID numbers are exempt from disclosure pursuant to R.C. 1306.23. This is in 

accordance 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, Respondent’s objection 

is SUSTAINED.

{¶11} Because the Court has decided that the employee 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 City of Grove City v. Clark, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1369, 2002-Ohio-4549, ¶ 11

(actions or opinions are moot when they have become fictitious, colorable, hypothetical, 

academic or dead); see also State ex rel. Karmasu v. Tate, 83 Ohio App.3d 199, 205, 

614 N.E.2d 827 (4th Dist.1992) citing Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 4th Dist. 

Ross No. 1790, at 4-5, 1992 WL 97805 (May 11, 1992) (a trial court “is not required to 

consider any legal theory, or argument, beyond that which will adequately dispose of the 

case at hand”). Accord PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Drug Enforcement 

Administration (D.C.Cir.2004), 362 F.3d 786, 799, 360 U.S. App. D.C. 344 (Roberts, J., 

2

It appears that Respondent did not inform the Special Master that its employees use their ID 

numbers as usernames for certain computer systems.
Case No. 2023-00633PQ -5- DECISION & ENTRY

concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (expressing “the cardinal principle of 

judicial restraint,” i.e., “if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide 

more”).

III. Conclusion

{¶12} The Court SUSTAINS Respondent’s objection for the reasons set forth 

above. The Court adopts, in part, and rejects, in part, the Special Master’s Report and 

Recommendation. Specifically, the Court does not adopt the Special Master’s 

recommendation that unredacted copies of pp. 779, 784-786, 791-793, 858-860, and 864-

866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence should 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 to Requester, (2) Respondent shall continue to produce the 

requested videos as expeditiously as possible,3(3) Requester is entitled to recover from 

Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs 

associated with the action that are incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees, 

and (4) court costs are assessed against Respondent.

{¶13} The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of 

entry upon the journal.

LISA L. SADLER

Judge

Filed February 8, 2024

Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/7/24

3 The Special Master noted that the production of the video records had not yet been completed at 

the time of the Report and Recommendation, but he did not order a timeline for the remainder of the video 

production. (R&R, 1, 8.) Nevertheless, the Special Master rejected Respondent’s justifications for the 

delays in processing the video records (R&R, 7) and R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires that records be made 

available within a reasonable period of time—which has already been exceeded. No objections were filed 

regarding the production of the videos.