[Cite as Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022-Ohio-1619.]

{¶1} Requester Dennis Grant objects to a Special Master’s recommendation to 

dismiss Grant’s public-records complaint without prejudice. Defendant Ohio Department 

of Rehabilitation & Correction, Correctional Reception Center, has not filed a written 

response to Grant’s objections. The Court overrules Grant’s objections for reasons set 

forth below.

{¶2} On March 8, 2022, in a Recommendation to Dismiss Without Prejudice, the

Special Master states, “By requester’s count the complaint includes approximately 115 

partially overlapping records requests, almost all allegedly unfulfilled.” (Recommendation

To Dismiss Without Prejudice, 1.) The Special Master also states:

On review, the special master concludes that resolution of this 

dispute is unlikely to be expeditiously litigated under the procedures

available in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the 

parties suggests that mediation is unlikely to resolve any substantial portion 

of the unfulfilled requests. Because the parties may not conduct discovery, 

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

likely require multiple factual inquiries by the special master under R.C. 

2743.75(E)(3)(c). Records subject to judicial review in camera for 

applicability of claimed exceptions and extent of permitted redaction would 

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 ENTRY
Case No. 2022-00114PQ -2- DECISION & ENTRY

are available to the requester through his alternative remedy in a 

mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2). The volume and variety 

of requests, legal issues, and factual questions in requester’s complaint is 

simply inconsistent with the statutory intent, timelines, and procedures 

provided in R.C. 2743.75.

{¶3} The special master therefore recommends that the complaint be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(C)(2).

(Footnote omitted.) (Recommendation To Dismiss Without Prejudice, 2-3.)

In written objections, Requester Grant asserts,

• First Objection. The Recommendation disregards the fact that the 

Respondent has not furnished the Requester with the requested records 

within a reasonable period of time. 

• Second Objection. The Recommendation disregards the fact that the 

Respondent did not inform the Requester of the manner in which certain 

withheld records are maintained and accessed in the ordinary course of

the Respondent's duties.

• Third Objection. The Recommendation misconstrues the intent of R.C. 

§2743.75 and its available remedies.

• Fourth Objection. The Recommendation is premised on unsubstantiated 

factual assumptions. Because it is premised on unsupported factual 

assumptions, it is not in compliance with the intent of R.C. §2743.75.

• Procedural Concerns. The Court’s outline of procedural steps was not followed.

(Footnote omitted.)

{¶4} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(A), the General Assembly created the special 

proceeding in R.C. 2743.75 to provide for an “expeditious” and “economical” procedure
Case No. 2022-00114PQ -3- DECISION & ENTRY

to resolve public-records disputes.

1

 See Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s 

Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11 (“[u]ntil the 2016 

enactment of R.C. 2743.75, an action in mandamus under R.C. 149.43(C) was the 

remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act”); State ex 

rel. O’Malley v. Russo, 156 Ohio St.3d 548, 2019-Ohio-1698, 130 N.E.3d 256, ¶ 21, 

quoting R.C. 2505.02(A)(2) (a “‘special proceeding’ is one ‘that is specially created by 

statute and that prior to 1853 was not denoted as an action at law or a suit in equity’”); 

(2015) Sub.S.B. No. 321 (enacting R.C. 2743.75, effective September 28, 2016).

1

In R.C. 2743.75(A), the General Assembly stated: “In order to provide for an expeditious and 

economical procedure that attempts to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records in 

violation of [R.C. 149.43(B)], except for a court that hears a mandamus action pursuant to that section, the 

court of claims shall be the sole and exclusive authority in this state that adjudicates or resolves complaints 

based on alleged violations of that section.” (Emphasis added.) The terms “expeditious” and “economical”

are not defined in R.C. 2743.75(A). R.C. 1.42, a rule of construction, provides, “Words and phrases shall 

be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Words and 

phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, 

shall be construed accordingly.” Notably, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has described the common 

meaning of “expeditious,” as follows:

The words “expedite” and “expeditious” are defined by the New International Dictionary 

thus:

“Expedite: To make haste; to speed. Expeditious: Possessed of, or characterized by, 

expedition or efficiency and rapidity in action; performed with, or acting with, expedition; 

quick; speedy; as, an expeditious march or messenger.”

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Ridley, 119 Okla. 138, 140, 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, with frugality; avoiding waste; frugal; thrifty; saving; as economical use of money 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 provision that provides for an “expeditious” and “economical"

procedure—the General Assembly 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 rel. Thompson v. Spon, 83 Ohio St.3d 

551, 553, 700 N.E.2d 1281 (1998) (“[t]he paramount consideration in construing a statute 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., 165 Ohio St. 45, 49, 133 N.E.2d 780 (1956) (“in construing a statute ‘such a 

construction should be adopted which permits the statute and its various parts to 

be construed as a whole and gives effect to the paramount object to be attained’”).
Case No. 2022-00114PQ -4- DECISION & ENTRY

{¶5} The Special Master recommends dismissing Grant’s Complaint without 

prejudice pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(C)(2). R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) requires dismissal of a 

public-records complaint without prejudice after this Court determines that a publicrecords complaint constitutes a case of first impression that involves an issue of 

substantial public interest. 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)].

A review of the Special Master’s recommendation discloses that the Special Master has 

not concluded that Requester Grant’s Complaint constitutes a case of first impression that 

involves an issue of substantial public interest—a prerequisite for dismissal of a publicrecords complaint without prejudice under R.C. 2743.75(C). The Special Master’s 

recommendation for dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(C) is not well supported.

{¶6} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), however, “[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 finds ample

merit in the Special Master’s view that civil discovery and less restrictive timelines are 

available through a mandamus action. In accordance with the Special Master’s 

recommendation, therefore, the Court sua sponte dismisses Requester Grant’s 

Complaint without prejudice pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). The Court concurrently 
Case No. 2022-00114PQ -5- DECISION & ENTRY

overrules Requester Grant’s objections. Court costs are assessed to Requester Grant. 

The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon 

the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN

Judge

Filed April 19, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/13/22