[Cite as Advance Local Media, L.L.C. v. Ohio State Univ. , 2022-Ohio-321.]

{¶1} On November 10, 2021, a Special Master recommended dismissal of

Requester’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(C)(2).1 

(Recommendation To Dismiss Without Prejudice, 2.) No party has objected to the 

Special Master’s recommendation. 

{¶2} The Special Master states, 

On review of the complaint the special master concludes that resolution of 

this dispute is unlikely to be expeditious if litigated under the procedures 

available in R.C. 2743.75. Because the parties may not conduct discovery, 

R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(a), determination of fact-dependent issues would likely 

require multiple voluminous inquiries by the special master under R.C. 

2743.75(E)(3)(c). Further, records potentially subject to judicial review in 

1 R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) provides: 

If the allegedly aggrieved person files a complaint under this section 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)]. 

 Here, the Special Master has not concluded that Requester’s Complaint constitutes a case of first 

impression that involves an issue of substantial public interest, which, in turn, under R.C. 2743.75(C) 

would require dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice and an order directing Requester to 

commence a mandamus action in a court of appeals with appropriate jurisdiction. 

ADVANCE LOCAL MEDIA, LLC, DBA 

CLEVELAND.COM, AND PLAIN 

DEALER PUBLISHING CO. 

 Requester 

 v. 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2021-00596PQ 

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 
Case No. 2021-00596PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

camera for applicability of claimed exceptions and extent of permitted 

redaction include at least 161 victim/witness interviews (Complaint at 2) 

and an unknown number of communication records. In contrast, civil 

discovery and less restrictive timelines are available to the requester in a 

mandamus action filed pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2). 

(Recommendation To Dismiss Without Prejudice, 2.) 

{¶3} The Court finds that, in this instance, the Special Master’s recommendation 

to dismiss Requester’s complaint without prejudice is well taken under R.C. 

2743.75(D)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), “[n]otwithstanding any provision to the 

contrary in this section, upon the recommendation of the special master, the court of 

claims on its own motion may dismiss the complaint at any time.” The Court agrees 

with the Special Master’s view that, under the circumstances of this case, civil discovery 

and less restrictive timelines may be available to Requester in a mandamus action filed 

under R.C. 149.43. See R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b) (permitting a mandamus action to obtain 

a judgment that orders compliance with R.C. 149.43(B)). 

{¶4} Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), the Court sua sponte 

dismisses Requester’s Complaint without prejudice in accordance with the Special 

Master’s recommendation. Court costs are assessed to Requester. The clerk shall 

serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 

 PATRICK E. SHEERAN 

 Judge 

Filed January 25, 2022 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/4/22