[Cite as Parks v. Stronger Berger, 2019-Ohio-968.]

{¶1} Respondent Stronger Berger, Stronger Community PAC (Stronger Berger 

PAC) objects to a special master’s report and recommendation that advises the court to 

dismiss this case without prejudice as a case of first impression. 

I. Background 

{¶2} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D), requester Michael R. Parks filed a complaint 

against Stronger Berger PAC, alleging that he was denied access to public records in 

violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The court appointed an attorney as a special master in the 

cause. The court, through the special master, referred the case to mediation. After 

mediation failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues, the court returned the case 

to the special master’s docket. Stronger Berger PAC moved to dismiss Parks’ 

complaint, contending that it was not subject to Ohio public records law because it was 

a private entity. 

{¶3} On January 4, 2019, the special master issued a report and 

recommendation (R&R) wherein he stated: “I find that this case presents an entirely 

novel question for the decision of the court, and cannot be governed by any existing 

precedent. Determination of the question presented requires analysis of the interplay 

between the Public Records Act, the record-keeping and disclosure provisions of R.C. 

Chapter 3517, and, due to the request for ‘all meeting minutes,’ the Open Meetings Act. 

Under the particular facts and circumstances of this matter, I recommend the court find 

MICHAEL R. PARKS 

 Requester 

 v. 

STRONGER BERGER, STRONGER 

COMMUNITY PAC 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2018-01294PQ 

Judge Patrick M. McGrath 

ENTRY ADOPTING 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

SPECIAL MASTER 
Case No. 2018-01294PQ -2- ENTRY 

that the claim presented constitutes a case of first impression.” (R&R, 3.) The special 

master recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice pursuant to R.C. 

2743.75(C)(2). 

{¶4} On January 16, 2019—seven business days after Stronger Berger PAC 

received a copy of the R&R—Stronger Berger PAC filed a written objection to the 

special master’s R&R. In a certificate of service, Stronger Berger PAC’s counsel 

certified that she sent a copy of the written objection to Parks by certified mail, return 

receipt requested. Stronger Berger PAC asserts in its objection that this case does not 

present a novel question of law, stating: “Far from a novel question of law, this Court 

can resolve this question, as courts have done for nearly a decade, by a 

straightforward-application of the well-established precedent announced by the Ohio 

Supreme Court in [State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, 

2006-Ohio-4854, 854 N.E.2d 193].” (Objections, 2.) Stronger Berger PAC urges the 

court to dismiss Parks’ complaint with prejudice. (Objections, 8.) 

{¶5} Parks has not filed a timely response to Stronger Berger PAC’s objection to 

the special master’s R&R. 

II. Law and Analysis 

{¶6} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) governs objections to a report and recommendation 

issued by a special master of this court relative to a public-records dispute brought 

under R.C. 2743.75. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party “may object to the 

report and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and 

recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk and sending a copy to the 

other party by certified mail, return receipt requested.” If the other party files a response 

to a timely filed objection, the court, within seven business days after the response to 

the objection is filed, “shall issue a final order that adopts, modifies, or rejects the report 

and recommendation.” R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Based on a review of the record, the court 

finds that Stronger Berger PAC’s objection to the R&R is timely filed because Stronger 
Case No. 2018-01294PQ -3- ENTRY 

Berger PAC filed its objection in accordance with requirements contained in R.C 

2743.75(F)(2). 

{¶7} Notwithstanding Stronger Berger PAC’s contentions, the court is not 

persuaded that this case does not present a novel issue and, if this court were to apply 

the four-factor test set forth in Oriana House, this court would be required to dismiss 

Parks’ complaint with prejudice. 

{¶8} First, this court’s application of Oriana House’s four-factor test in a publicrecords dispute has been, and continues to be, the subject of litigation. See Sheil v. 

Horton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107329, 2018-Ohio-5240, appeal and motion for 

immediate stay pending, Ohio Supreme Court No. 2018-1816. Whether application of 

Oriana House’s four-factor test demands a dismissal of this case without prejudice is 

debatable. 

{¶9} Second, Oriana House was decided by a slim majority (4-3) more than 

twelve years ago. See Oriana House (decided October 4, 2006) (Pfeifer, J., with 

Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Lanzinger, JJ., concurring, and Moyer, C.J., 

dissenting, with Resnick and O’Connor, JJ., concurring in the dissenting opinion). 

Except for Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor (who, at the time Oriana House was issued, 

served as a justice on the Court), the jurists who decided Oriana House no longer serve 

on the Ohio Supreme Court. The current Ohio Supreme Court could determine that 

Oriana House’s four-factor test should be revisited because to do so constitutes a 

matter of substantial public interest. See generally Williamson v. Rubich, 171 Ohio St. 

253, 254, 168 N.E.2d 876 (1960) (jurisdiction of the Ohio Supreme Court) (discussing 

questions of public or great general interest as distinguished from questions of interest 

primarily to the parties). 

{¶10} Third, the special master found that this case “presents an entirely novel 

question for the decision of the court, and cannot be governed by any existing 

precedent.” (R&R, 3.) And the special master noted that the question presented in this 
Case No. 2018-01294PQ -4- ENTRY 

case requires analysis of the interplay between the Ohio Public Records Act, the recordkeeping and disclosure provisions of R.C. Chapter 3517, the Ohio Open Meetings Act. 

(R&R, 3.) Based on the court’s independent review, the court concludes that the 

special master’s finding that this case presents a novel question is not error. 

{¶11} Accordingly, consistent with the special master’s recommendation, the 

court determines that Parks’ complaint in this case constitutes a case of first impression 

that involves an issue of substantial public interest. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(C)(2), “[i]f 

the allegedly aggrieved person files a complaint under [R.C. 2743.75] and the court of 

claims determines that the complaint constitutes a case of first impression that involves 

an issue of substantial public interest, the court shall dismiss the complaint without 

prejudice and direct the allegedly aggrieved person to commence a mandamus action in 

the court of appeals with appropriate jurisdiction as provided in [R.C. 149.43(C)(1)].” 

Because the court has determined that the complaint in this case constitutes a case of 

first impression that involves an issue of substantial public interest, R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) 

requires the court to dismiss Parks’ complaint without prejudice. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶12} For reasons set forth above, the court adopts the special master’s R&R, 

including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. The court 

OVERRULES Stronger Berger PAC’s written objections to the special master’s R&R of 

January 4, 2019. The court dismisses Parks’ complaint without prejudice. In 

accordance with R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) the court directs Parks to commence a mandamus 

action in the court of appeals with appropriate jurisdiction as provided in R.C. 

149.43(C)(1). Court costs are absorbed by the court. The clerk shall serve upon all 

parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 
Case No. 2018-01294PQ -5- ENTRY 

 

 PATRICK M. MCGRATH 

 Judge 

Filed February 5, 2019 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/20/19