[Cite as Staton v. Cuyahoga Falls, 2024-Ohio-818.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} In this public-records case, Respondent objects to a Special Master’s Report 

and Recommendation. The Court sustains Respondent’s first objection and finds 

Respondent’s remaining objections moot for reasons that follow.

I. Background

{¶2} On August 24, 2023, Requester Matthew Staton filed a public-records 

complaint against Respondent. In the Complaint, Requester alleges that, on August 10,

2023, he “requested copy of all records, including name of any person, including 

employees and season pass holders, that were scanned or otherwise searched in any 

database, public or private, for sex crimes at any and all public facilities in July and August 

of 2023.”

1

 Requester also alleges that, on August 21, 2023, he “received an email from 

1 The Special Master has described Requester’s public-records requests as follows:

“Please provide me with copies of all parent/ guardian consent forms that were signed 

by all minors who have had their valid government id or any other id scanned or searched 

in any public or private database for sex offenders at any public facility in July and August 

2023.”

“Please provide a copy of all records, including names of any person, including

employees and season pass holders, that were scanned or otherwise searched in any 

database, public or private, for sex crimes at any and all public facilities in July and August 

of 2023.” (Sic.)

(Report and Recommendation, 1.)

MATTHEW STATON

 Requester

 v. 

CITY OF CUYAHOGA FALLS

 Respondent

Case No. 2023-00559PQ

Judge Lisa L. Sadler

DECISION AND ENTRY
Case No. 2023-00559PQ -2- DECISION & ENTRY

Connor McHugh, Assistant Law Director[,] stating that there were ‘no records,’” and that,

on or about August 10, 2023, he “spoke with an employee at Water Works Family Aquatic 

Center and was told that the records were stored in an Excel spreadshee[t]. The City of 

Cuyahoga Falls is required to provide copies of these records.”

{¶3} The Court appointed a Special Master who referred the case to mediation. 

After mediation failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties, the 

case was returned to the Special Master’s docket.

{¶4} On December 12, 2023, the Special Master issued a Report and 

Recommendation (R&R). The Special Master “recommends that:

A. Respondent be ordered to further investigate which portions of the

records filed for in camera review are exempted from production by R.C. 

149.43(A)(1)(r) [a “public record” does not mean “[i]nformation pertaining to 

the recreational activities of a person under the age of eighteen”], to redact 

those portions, and to produce the balance of those records within 30 days 

of the entry a R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) order in this case.

B. Requester recover his filing fees and costs.

C. Respondent bear the balance of the costs of this case, and

D. All other relief be denied.”

(R&R, 9.)

{¶5} On December 27, 2023, Respondent filed written objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. Respondent’s counsel sent a copy of Respondent’s objections to 

Requester by certified mail, return receipt requested, according to a Certificate of Service 

accompanying the objections.

{¶6} Requester has not filed a timely response to Respondent’s objections.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶7} 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
Case No. 2023-00559PQ -3- DECISION & ENTRY

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. 

{¶8} 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:

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, ¶ 30, followed.)

Jones-Kelley at paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), any objection to a report and 

recommendation “shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the 

objection.” Respondent presents four objections for the Court’s determination. 

Objection 1: The Special Master Erred in Holding These Documents are 

Records.

Objection 2: The Special Master Erred in Holding the City Has Failed to

Identify Exempted Information.

Objection 3: The Special Master Erred in Holding the City’s Claim of 

Inextricably Intertwined Records Moot.
Case No. 2023-00559PQ -4- DECISION & ENTRY

Objection 4: The Special Master Erred in Holding that Staton has Proven by 

Clear and Convincing Evidence That He is Entitled to Any Records.

{¶10} Respondent’s first objection challenges the Special Master’s determination 

that the requested documents are records. The definition of record in R.C. 149.011 

contains three elements: “they must be (1) documents, devices, or items, including 

electronic records, (2) created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of the 

[public] office, (3) that serve to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions,

procedures, operations, or other activities of the office.” State ex rel. Data Trace 

Information Servs. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255, 2012-Ohio-753,

963 N.E.2d 1288, ¶ 31, citing R.C. 149.011(G). In the Report and Recommendation, the 

Special Master determined that “several spreadsheets collecting information gathered 

while determining whether persons 16 years old or older seeking admission to the City’s 

aquatic facilities are sex offenders” (R&R, 3) “unquestionably” satisfied “the first two 

defining elements of a record” because they are “‘documents’ and copies of ‘electronic 

records’” (R&R, 4) and they “were ‘created’ by city employees who input the data and are 

under the City’s ‘jurisdiction’ because the City was able to retrieve and file them in this 

case. They also have the third defining element because they ‘document the *** policies,

*** operations, or other activities of the office.’” (R&R, 4.) The Special Master explained:

The spreadsheets were created in the course of executing “a City of 

Cuyahoga Falls policy which prohibits sex offenders from entering certain 

City facilities” and verify City employees’ actions to implement those 

policies. Response to Complaint, pp. 12-13, ¶¶ 5-8. They therefore 

“document” one aspect of one of the City’s “policies”: the dates and times 

that it took specific actions to implement the policy against admitting sex 

offenders to City facilities. They also “document” the City’s “operations and 

*** activities” by memorializing the information that City employees 

gathered.

(R&R, 4.)

{¶11} However, the Special Master found that the existence of the third element 

for what constituted a record was “a closer call” “because of cases holding that names 
Case No. 2023-00559PQ -5- DECISION & ENTRY

and addresses of private citizens were not records.” (R&R, 4.) The Special Master 

determined that several cases, including State ex rel. McCleary v. Roberts, 88 Ohio St.3d 

365, 2000-Ohio-345, 725 N.E.2d 1144, did not “control” in this instance. (R&R, 4.)

{¶12} The Court respectfully disagrees with the Special Master’s view that 

McCleary does not control in this instance. Rather, the Court finds that the facts, as set 

forth by the Special Master, align with McCleary. In McCleary the city of Columbus 

implemented a photo identification program for its Recreation and Parks Department. The

program required parents of children who used the city’s pools and other recreation 

facilities to provide certain personal information regarding their children (e.g., the names,

home addresses, family information, emergency contact information, and medical history 

information of participating children) and, in return, each child was provided a 

photographic identification card to present when using pools and recreation centers. 

Cornell McCleary requested a copy of the Department’s electronic database, which 

contained the personal, identifying information regarding those children who were 

participating in the photo identification program. The city’s Assistant Director of 

Recreation for the Department of Recreation and Parks refused to release the database 

and provide the requested information.

{¶13} McCleary sought a writ of mandamus in the Franklin County Court of 

Common Pleas, and, after the appropriate appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted 

jurisdiction. The Ohio Supreme Court held: “Personal information of private citizens,

obtained by a ‘public office,’ reduced to writing and placed in record form and used by the 

public office in implementing some lawful regulatory policy, is not a ‘public record’ as 

contemplated by R.C. 149.43.” McCleary at syllabus. The personal information gathered

“does nothing to document any aspect of the City’s Recreation and Parks Department.” 

Id. at 368. The “disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in 

various governmental files but that reveals little or nothing about an agency’s own 

conduct” does not serve the purpose of “shed[ding] light on an agency’s performance of 

its statutory duties[.]” Id. Given that, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the intrusion 

upon the constitutionally protected privacy of private citizens, including children, was 

unwarranted. Id., citing United States Dept. of Justice v. Reports Commt. for Freedom of 

the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 780, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed..2d 774 (1989).
Case No. 2023-00559PQ -6- DECISION & ENTRY

{¶14} Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that this matter is analogous to

McCleary as Respondent obtained the personal information of private citizens and

reduced this information to writing when it implemented its regulatory policy. Unlike the 

regulatory policy itself—which could be a proper object of a public records request—the 

information collected from the private citizens pursuant to the policy does not in any way 

shed light upon the city’s functions. Accordingly, the disclosure of the information would

not contribute to citizen oversight of the city’s performance of its duties. Therefore, as in 

McCleary, even though the personal information collected by the city was placed in record 

form, it was not a public record because it does not meet the third element—that the 

document “serves to document the organization, functions, policies, operations, or other 

activities of the office.” R.C. 149.011(G). Therefore, Respondent’s first objection is well 

taken and is sustained.

{¶15} Because Respondent’s first objection has been sustained, Respondent’s 

remaining objections are rendered moot and a determination of Respondent’s remaining 

objections is not required. See City of Grove City v. Clark, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP1369, 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., 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

{¶16} For reasons set forth above, the Court SUSTAINS Respondent’s first 

objection and finds Respondent’s second, third, and fourth objections moot. The Court
Case No. 2023-00559PQ -7- DECISION & ENTRY

rejects the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation. Court costs are assessed 

against Requester. 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 6, 2024

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