[Cite as Parks v. Blanchester Bd. of Pub. Affairs, 2021-Ohio-4653.]

{¶1} The Public Records Act (PRA or Act) requires a public office to make copies 

of requested public records available at cost and within a reasonable period of time. 

R.C. 149.43(B)(1). The Act is construed liberally in favor of broad access, with any 

doubt resolved in favor of disclosure. State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 56, 2018-Ohio-5133, 123 N.E.3d 928, ¶ 12. 

R.C. 2743.75 provides an expeditious and economical procedure to resolve public 

records disputes in the Court of Claims. 

{¶2} On August 14, 2021, requester Joshua Parks sent an email request to the 

records clerk of respondent Village of Blanchester: 

Please send me any and all emails related to Blanchester Board of Public 

Affairs Director Ram Reddy, just send me the copies of his emails, you 

can forward them over to me if that’s easier. Dates (January, 1 2021 to 

current which is August, 14 2021) 

If Ram Reddy is using his personal email for any business, Government, 

or Work use then that would also be available as public records and I 

would like those forwarded to me as well. If you need me to clarify more 

on the record request please let me know. 

(Complaint at 3.) The clerk responded that the request was ambiguous and overly broad 

and invited Parks to provide the subject matter and time frame of the communications 

sought. She attached a copy of the Attorney General’s 2021 Sunshine Law Manual as 

JOSHUA PARKS 

 Requester 

 v. 

BLANCHESTER BOARD OF PUBLIC 

AFFAIRS, VILLAGE OF BLANCHESTER 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2021-00524PQ 

Special Master Jeff Clark 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
Case No. 2021-00524PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

guidance for revising the request. (Id.) On August 31, 2021 the records clerk advised 

the request had been closed for lack of the subject matter of emails sought. (Id. at 2.) 

Parks declined to provide that information or otherwise revise the request. (Id.) 

{¶3} On September 14, 2021, Parks filed a complaint pursuant to R.C. 2743.75 

alleging denial of access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). On 

September 28, 2021, the Village filed an answer (Response). Following unsuccessful 

mediation, the court offered the Village an opportunity to submit additional response by 

December 8, 2021. No further pleading has been filed. 

Burden of Proof 

{¶4} The Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, is construed liberally in favor of 

broad access, with any doubt resolved in favor of disclosure of public records. State ex 

rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545, 2018-Ohio-5111, 122 

N.E.3d 1208, ¶ 6. The requester in an action under R.C. 2743.75 bears an overall 

burden to establish a public records violation by clear and convincing evidence. Hurt v. 

Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 (5th Dist.). The requester bears 

an initial burden of production “to plead and prove facts showing that the requester 

sought an identifiable public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public 

office or records custodian did not make the record available.” Welsh-Huggins v. 

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

768, ¶ 33. 

Ambiguous and Overly Broad Requests

{¶5} It is “the responsibility of the person who wishes to inspect and/or copy 

records to identify with reasonable clarity the records at issue.” State ex rel. Zidonis v. 

Columbus State Community College, 133 Ohio St.3d 122, 2012-Ohio-4228, 976 N.E.2d 

861, ¶ 21. A request that does not reasonably identify what public records are being 

requested may be denied. R.C. 149.43(B)(2). See generally Gupta v. Cleveland, Ct. of 

Cl. No. 2017-00840PQ, 2018-Ohio-3475, ¶ 22-29, and cases cited therein. Judicial 
Case No. 2021-00524PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

determination of whether an office has properly denied a request as ambiguous or 

overly broad is based on the facts and circumstances in each case. Zidonis at ¶ 26. 

{¶6} In this case, the request is ambiguous and overly broad in multiple, 

overlapping ways. First, the request seeks “any and all emails related to” a named 

employee for an eight- and one-half month period. “Any and all” is a term of broad and 

complete inclusion, rather than one of specification and identification. It includes all 

email the employee has sent, received, or was cc’d or bcc’d on. It includes email about 

internal employment matters, office-distributed policies, training notices, other 

administrative correspondence, personal communications, and even spam messages, 

without exception. The Supreme Court has held that a request for “all e-mails sent or 

received by” a public official for a six-month period was overly broad and therefore 

improper. State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 

N.E.2d 686, ¶ 4-5, 16-19. See also State ex rel. Bristow v. Baxter, 6th Dist. Erie Nos. E17-060, E-17-067, E-17-070, 2018-Ohio-1973, ¶ 11-16. As used here, the demand for 

“any and all” emails is independently sufficient to render the request ambiguous and 

overly broad. 

{¶7} Separately, the broad but vague inclusion of all emails “related to [the 

employee]” sweeps in not just email to which the employee was a correspondent but 

any other email referring to the employee or referencing office matters with which he is 

involved. This is language of expansion and research rather than identification and 

clarity. It requires the Village to comb through each office email for any relationship with 

the employee rather than retrieve those reasonably identified by subject matter, search 

terms, and the like. State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman, 92 Ohio St.3d 312, 314, 750 N.E.2d 

156 (2001). Accord State ex rel. Chasteen v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. 

Franklin No. 13-AP-779, 2014-Ohio-1848, ¶ 23-27; DeCrane v. Cleveland, Ct. of Cl. No. 

2018-00358PQ, 2018-Ohio-3651, ¶ 6-7, adopted by DeCrane v. Cleveland, Ct. of Cl. 

No. 2018-00358PQ, 2018-Ohio-4363, cited with approval in Barnes v. Cleveland Div. of 
Case No. 2021-00524PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Records Admin., 2021-Ohio-212, 167 N.E.3d 51, ¶ 43 (8th Dist.). Compare State ex rel. 

Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 22, 2018-Ohio-5110, 123 N.E.3d 895, 

¶ 23-27 (A request for email is not overly broad if it is reasonably circumscribed by time 

period, subject matter, author or sender/recipient, and the like). The special master finds 

that the all-encompassing request for any email related to the employee is ambiguous, 

overly broad, and fails to reasonably identify the records sought. 

{¶8} An office record kept on an employee’s personal device as the record copy 

of email communication can be a public record. See Sinclair Media III v. Cincinnati, Ct. 

of Cl. No. 2018-01357PQ, 2019-Ohio-2624, ¶ 5-12 and cases cited therein. However, 

Parks’ second request, in the second paragraph of his August 14, 2021 email, is even 

broader than the first in demanding personal email “for any business, Government, or 

Work use” without identifying particular correspondents, subject matter or even the date 

range sought. A request is ambiguous and overly broad when it identifies 

correspondents only as belonging to titles, groups, or categories for which research is 

required to establish membership. State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 10th 

Dist. Franklin Nos. 04AP-492, 04AP-504, 2005-Ohio-3377, ¶ 9, overturned on other 

grounds, 107 Ohio St.3d 1694, 2005-Ohio-6763, 840 N.E.2d 201. Even more so is 

Parks’ request that the village research all of an employee’s personal emails to identify 

those relating to “any business, Government, or Work use” without identifying the 

business, government, or work correspondents involved. The special master finds that 

Parks’ second request, for records from the employee’s personal email account, is 

ambiguous, overly broad, and does not reasonably identify the records sought. 

Opportunity to Revise an Ambiguous or Overly Broad Request 

 When denying an ambiguous or overly broad request, a public office must 

provide the requester with an opportunity to revise the request by 

informing the requester of the manner in which records are maintained by 

the public office and accessed in the ordinary course of the public office’s 

or person’s duties. 
Case No. 2021-00524PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

R.C. 149.43(B)(2). In his August 14, 2021 request, Parks offered: “If you need me to 

clarify more on the record request please let me know.” (Complaint at 3.) The Village 

informed Parks the request was overly broad and took him up on his offer to clarify by 

asking him to provide subject matter and time frame for the emails sought. The Village 

further invited Parks to “[p]lease advise if you have any questions.” (Id.) Parks did not 

provide any additional information or ask any questions. On August 31, 2021 the village 

advised Parks that the request was closed, i.e., denied, for lack of identifying subject 

matter. (Id. at 2, Answer at ¶ 3.) Parks apparently took this as a second request for 

subject matter and responded: “The matter will be filed in Court of Claims this week. I 

prefer the courts to determine what is available to me and what is not at this time.” 

(Complaint at 2.) Based on the Village’s invitation to revise the request, its repeated 

advice that email could be located based on subject matter, and its repeated urging that 

Parks consult the Attorney General’s 2021 Ohio Sunshine Manual for guidance in 

crafting a proper request, the special master finds that the Village at least minimally met 

the requirements of R.C. 149.43(B)(2) to assist Parks in revising his request. 

{¶9} Under these circumstances, courts have encouraged parties to persevere to 

achieve a mutually acceptable resolution of currently deficient records requests. See 

State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901, 906 N.E.2d 

1105, ¶ 14-19. The General Assembly provides statutory tools to optimize the scope, 

speed, format, economy, and delivery of public records. See R.C. 149.43(B)(2), (3), (5), 

(6), (7) and (9). The parties are encouraged to cooperate fully in negotiating any future 

revision of this request. 

{¶10} The special master finds that Parks’ public records request was not limited 

to email identified by a reasonable time period, by topic, or by identified correspondents. 

Parks has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that he made a request that 

reasonably identified the records sought, and the request is thus unenforceable. This 
Case No. 2021-00524PQ -6- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

conclusion does not restrict Parks from filing a new public records request that does 

reasonably identify the public records sought. 

Conclusion 

{¶11} Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments, the special master 

recommends the court deny the claim for production of records. It is recommended 

costs be assessed to requester. 

{¶12} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection 

with the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after 

receiving this report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with 

particularity all grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the 

court’s adoption of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and 

recommendation unless a timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1). 

 

 JEFF CLARK 

 Special Master

Filed December 22, 2021 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/21/22