[Cite as Portsmouth Daily Times v. New Boston, 2022-Ohio-317.]

{¶1} On December 23, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(1). The Special Master states in 

the Report and Recommendation that “as the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the current 

request is conclusively established by The [Portsmouth Daily] Time’s reliance on federal 

FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] as its sole authority for making the request, it is 

unnecessary to further analyze the Village’s assertion that [a certain report] is exempted 

in its entirety as privileged attorney-client communication and/or attorney work product, 

and the special master thus submits no recommendation thereon.” (R&R, 4.) The 

Special Master recommends (1) granting a motion to dismiss filed by Respondent and 

(2) assessing costs to Requester. (R&R, 4.) 

{¶2} Neither party has timely filed written objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), 

if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then this 

Court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and 

recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect 

evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” 

{¶3} The Court determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on 

the face of the Report and Recommendation as to the issue of a lack of jurisdiction. 

Under Ohio law, the term “jurisdiction” “means ‘the courts’ statutory or constitutional 

power to adjudicate the case.’ (Emphasis omitted.)” Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 

PORTSMOUTH DAILY TIMES 

 Requester 

 v. 

THE VILLAGE OF NEW BOSTON 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2021-00414PQ 

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 
Case No. 2021-00414PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11, quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 

Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1998); Morrison v. 

Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 87, 290 N.E.2d 841 (1972), paragraph one of the syllabus. 

The term “jurisdiction” “encompasses jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the 

person.” Pratts at ¶ 11, citing State v. Parker, 95 Ohio St.3d 524, 2002-Ohio-2833, 769 

N.E.2d 846, ¶ 22 (Cook, J., dissenting). 

{¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that subject-matter jurisdiction “defines 

the competency of a court to render a valid judgment in a particular action.” Morrison, 

supra, at 87. As to the issue of personal jurisdiction, the Ohio Supreme Court has 

explained that personal jurisdiction over a defendant 

may be acquired either by service of process upon the defendant, the 

voluntary appearance and submission of the defendant or his legal 

representative, or by certain acts of the defendant or his legal 

representative which constitute an involuntary submission to the 

jurisdiction of the court. The latter may more accurately be referred to as a 

waiver of certain affirmative defenses, including jurisdiction over the 

person under the Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(Footnote omitted.) Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 464 N.E.2d 538 (1984). 

{¶5} In R.C. 2743.75(A), the General Assembly established that, except for a 

court that hears a mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B), the Ohio Court of 

Claims “shall be the sole and exclusive authority in this state that adjudicates or 

resolves complaints based on alleged violations of [R.C. 149.43(B)].” See R.C. 149.43 

(availability of public records). Under R.C. 2743.75(A) this Court therefore has statutory 

power to adjudicate this case. And, since both parties have voluntarily submitted to the 

jurisdiction of this Court in this case, personal jurisdiction has been established. The 

Court disagrees with the conclusion, as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, of 

a lack of jurisdiction. Because the Court possesses both subject-matter jurisdiction and 
Case No. 2021-00414PQ -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

personal jurisdiction in this case, this Court therefore may render a valid judgment. See 

Compton v. Compton, 2d Dist. No. 99-CA-17, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2592, at *3 

(June 11, 1999) (“[i]t is fundamental that in order to grant relief requested on a claim 

presented in an action the court in which the action is filed must have both personal 

jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter jurisdiction of the claim for relief involved”). 

{¶6} Nonetheless, the Court agrees with the view that Requester’s reliance on 

the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as its sole authority for making its publicrecords request is unenforceable against a nonfederal entity, such as Respondent 

Village of New Boston. See State ex rel. Carr v. City of Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351, 

2006-Ohio-6714, 859 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 33 (observing that “the FOIA does not apply to 

nonfederal entities”). The Court further agrees with the view that, in this instance, the 

principle of judicial restraint counsels against rendering a determination as to the issue 

of attorney-client privilege or the issue of attorney work-product, or both. See State ex 

rel. Luken v. Corp. for Findlay Mkt. of Cincinnati, 135 Ohio St.3d 416, 2013-Ohio-1532, 

988 N.E.2d 546, ¶ 25 (“The “‘cardinal principle of judicial restraint—if it is not necessary 

to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more”’—counsels against deciding issues 

rendered moot by our determination that the redacted information constitutes trade 

secrets. State ex rel. Asti v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 107 Ohio St.3d 262, 2005-

Ohio-6432, 838 N.E.2d 658, ¶ 34, quoting PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Drug 

Enforcement Administration (D.C.Cir.2004), 362 F.3d 786, 799 (Roberts, J., concurring 

in part and in the judgment)”); Meyer v. UPS, 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463, 909 

N.E.2d 106, ¶ 53. 
Case No. 2021-00414PQ -4- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

{¶7} Accordingly, for reasons set forth above, the Court adopts, in part, the 

Special Master’s Report and Recommendation. The Court GRANTS Respondent’s 

motion to dismiss. Judgment is rendered in favor of Respondent. 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 11, 2022 

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