[Cite as Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 2022

- Ohio

- 1619.]

{¶1} Request er Dennis Grant objec t s to a Special Master ’ s recommendation to
dismiss Grant ’ s public

- records com plaint without prejudice

. Defendant Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation & Correction, Cor rectional Reception Center
, has not filed a written response to G rant ’ s objections. The Co u rt overrules Grant ’ s objections for reasons set
f orth below. {¶2} On March 8, 2022, in a Recommendation to Dismiss Without Prejudice, t he Special Mast er state s , “ By requester’s count the complaint includes approxima tely 115
p artially overlapping rec ords reques t s, almost all allegedly unfulfilled. ” ( R ecommendation To Dismiss Without Prejudice, 1.) T he Special Master also state s :

O n r e v i e w , t h e s p e c i a l m a s t e r concludes that resolution of this dispute is unlikely to be ex pediti ously liti ga ted un der the procedure s

a vailable in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the parties suggests that mediation is unlikely to re solve any substantial p ortion of the unfulfilled requests. Because the par ties may n ot condu ct dis covery, R. C. 2743. 75(E)(3)(a), the d et ermination of fact

- dependent claims would likely require multiple factual inquiries by the special master under R.C.
274 3.75(E)(3)(c). Records subject to judicial review in camera for applicabil ity of cla imed exc eption s and exte nt of pe rmitted redaction wo uld likely be voluminous. In contrast, civil discovery and less restrictive timelines DENNIS D. GRANT
Requester

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION & CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION CENTER
Respondent Case No. 2022

- 00114PQ
Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

DECISION AND EN TRYC ase No. 2022

- 00114PQ

- 2

- D ECISIO N & ENTRY

are available to the requester thr ough his alternative re medy in a mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C )(2). The volume a nd var iety
of re qu ests, legal issues, and fa ctual questions in requester’s complaint is simply inconsistent with the statutory intent, timelines, and procedures
pro vided in R.C. 2743.75

. {¶3} The special master therefore recommends that the co mplaint be
dismiss ed wit hout preju di ce pur suant to R.C. 274 3 .7 5(C)(2). (Footnote omitted.) (R ecommendation To Dismiss Without Prejudice
, 2

- 3 .) In written objections, Requester Grant asserts
,

• First Objection. The Recommendati on di sreg ards the fact that the Respondent has no t furnished the Requeste r with the reque s ted records
within a r e asonable period of time.

• Second Objection. The Recommendation disregards the fact that the Respondent did n ot inform the Requester of the mann er in whi ch certain
wit hheld records are maintain ed and accessed in the o rdinary course o f the Respondent's duti e s.

• Third Objection. The Recommendation misconstrues the intent of R.C. §2743.75 and its available remedies.

• Fourth Objection. The Recommendati on is pre mised on unsub stantiated factual assumpt ions. Because it is prem ised on unsuppor t ed factual assumptions
, it is not in compliance with the intent of R.C. §2743.75.

• Procedural Concerns. The Court ’ s o utline of pr ocedural steps was not followed. (Foot note omit ted.) {¶4} Pu rsuant to R.C. 2743.75(A) , t he General Assem bly create d the sp ecial
proc e eding i n R.C. 2743.75 t o provide for an “ expeditiou s ” and “ economical ” procedureC ase No. 2022

- 00114PQ

- 3

- D ECISIO N & ENTRY

to re solve p ublic

- records dispute s

. 1 See We lsh

- Huggin s v. Jefferson Ct y. Pro secut

or ’ s Offi ce , 163 Ohio S t.3d 337, 2020

- Ohio

- 5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 1 1 ( “ [u]n til the 2016

ena c tment of R.C. 2 743.75
, an action in man dam us under R.C . 149.43(C) was the remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio ’ s Public R ecords Act ” ) ; State ex
rel. O ’ M alley v. Russo , 156 Ohio St.3d 548, 2019

- Ohio

- 1698, 130 N. E.3d 256, ¶ 21
, quotin g R.C. 25 0 5.02(A)(2) (a “ ‘ special pr oceeding ’ is one ‘ that is specia lly created by
st a tute and that prior to 1853 wa s not denoted as an ac tion at law or a suit in equity ’ ” ) ; (2 015) Sub. S.B. No. 321 (ena cting R.C. 274 3.75 , ef fective September 28, 2016 )

.

1 In R.C. 2743.75 (A), the General Assem bly state d : “ In o rde r to provide for an expeditious and economical procedure that attempts to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records in viola t i o n of [ R.C. 149.43(B ) ] , except for a court that hears a mand amus action pursuant to that section, the
cour t o f claims sha ll be the sole and exclusive authority in this state that adjudicates or resolves complaints based on alleged violations of that sect i o n

. ” (Emphasis added.) The ter ms “ expeditious ” and “ economi c al ” are not defined in R.C. 2743.75 (A). R.C. 1. 42 , a rule o f construction, provides
, “ Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage

. Words and phrase s t hat have ac quired a technical or particu l ar meaning, whether by legislative definition or othe rwise, shall be construed accordingly. ” Notably, t he Supreme Court of Oklahoma ha s described the common meaning of “ expeditious
, ” as follows :
The words “ exp edite ” a n d “ expe ditious ” are defined by the N e w Internationa l Dictionary thus:

“ Expedite: To m ake haste; t o speed. Expeditious: Possessed of, or characterized by, expedition or efficiency and rapidity in action; performed with, or acting wi t h, expedition; quick; sp eed y; a s, an expeditious march or me s senger. ”

Atchi son, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Ridl ey , 119 Okla . 138, 1 40, 249 P. 289 (1926). And the Supreme Court of Alabama has noted that the term “ economical ” in common usage has been defined as : “ ‘ Managing, or managed, wit h frugality; avoid ing waste; f rugal; thrift y; saving; as eco nomical use of mon ey or time. ’ ” Smith v. Chickamauga Cedar Co. , 263 Ala. 245, 248, 82 So.2d 200 (1955)
, quoting Webster ’s New International Dictionary ( 2d.Ed.) 814

. Through R.C. 2743.75(A)

— a pr o vision that provides for an “ expeditious ” and “ economical " procedure

— t he Gene ral Assemb ly thus has intended a procedure under R .C. 2743.75 that should be efficient, rapid, and avoids waste of money and time. See State ex r e l. Thompson v. Spon , 83 Ohio St .3d 551, 553, 700 N.E .2d 1281 (1998) ( “ [t]he paramount consideration in constr uing a s tatu te is legislative intent ” ); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Kosydar , 44 Ohio St.2d 208, 217, 339 N.E.2d 820 ( 1975) , quoting Humphrys v. Winous Co.
, 1 65 Ohio St. 45, 49 , 133 N.E.2d 780 (1956) ( “ in cons t ruing a s tatute ‘ such a construction should be adopted wh ich perm its the st atute and its various parts to be construed as a whole and gives effect to the paramount object to be attained ’ ” ).C ase No. 2022

- 00114PQ

- 4

- D ECISIO N & ENTRY

{¶5} The Special Maste r recommends dismi ssi ng Grant ’ s Com plaint without
pre judic e p ur suant t o R.C. 2743.75(C)(2). R.C. 274 3.75 (C) (2) requires dismissal of a public

- records complaint without pr ejudic e after this Court determines that a public

records complaint const itutes a case of first impress ion t hat involves an issue of
subst antia l public int er est

. R.C. 2743.75 (C) (2) prov ides:

If the allegedly aggrieved person files a co mplaint un der this section and the court of claims determines that the complaint constitutes a case of
first i mpression tha t i nv olves an issue of substantial publi c interest, th e court
shall dismiss the com plaint without prejudice and direct the alleged ly aggrieved person to commence a mandamus action in the court of appeals with appropriate juri s dictio n as provid ed in [ R.C. 1 49. 43 (C)(1) ]

. A review of the Special Master ’ s recommendation discloses that the Sp ecial Mas ter h as
not concl ud ed that Requester Grant ’ s Complaint consti tutes a case of first impression that
in volves an issue of substantial public i n terest

— a pre requisite for di sm iss al of a public

re cords complaint w ithout prej udice u nder R.C. 2743.75 (C)

. The Spec ial Master ’ s recommend ation for dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2743 .75 (C) is not well supported. {¶6} P ur suant to R.C. 274 3. 75(D)(2), howe ver, “ [n] o t withstanding any provision to the contrary in this section, upon the recommendation of the special ma st er, the court of
claims on its own motion may dismiss the complai nt at any t ime. ” T he C ourt finds ample
merit in the S pecia l Master ’ s v ie w that civil d i scovery and less restrictive timelines are
available thr ough a mandamus ac tion

. I n accordanc e with the Sp ecial Maste r ’ s recommendation, t herefore, t he Court sua sponte dismisses Requester Grant ’ s Comp laint without pre j udice pursuan t to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2)

. The Court concurrentlyC ase No. 2022

- 00114PQ

- 5

- D ECISIO N & ENTRY

overrules Requester Grant ’ s objections. Court costs are a ssessed to R equester Grant

. T he C lerk shall serve upon all p art ies noti ce of t his jud gment and its date of entr y upon
t he journ al.

PATRICK E. S H EERAN J udge

Fi l ed April 19 , 2022 Sent to S.C. Reporter 5 / 1 3 /22