[Cite as Doe v. Ohio State Univ. , 2023

- Ohio

- 3620.]

IN THE C O URT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} The matter s before the special master are Plaintiff John Doe’s Motion f or Leave to Proceed Under a Pseu d onym and to Permit Plaintiff to File Affidavit Under Seal Pursuant To Sup. R. 45 , filed August 14, 2023 (“ Requester’s Motion ”) and Ohio State University’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Proceed under a P s eud onym and Motion to Strike, f iled August 16, 2023 (“ Motion to Strike ”). Requester’s Motion is granted a s to his request to proceed under a pseudonym , but denied as to hi s request to file a redacted affidavit. The Motion to Strike is granted and the c lerk i s directed to strike Exh ibit A to the Requester’s Motion from the record

. I. Background. {¶2} Requester is engaged in the business of purchasing tickets to sporting events for resale. He made several requests to Respondent Ohio Stat e University (“ OSU ”) for public records in furtherance of t ha t b usiness. He made those requests anonymously, and transmitted all related correspondence without disclosing his i dentity. OSU produced some of the requested records, but denied requests for others. Requester filed this case under R.C. 2743.75 to ch alle ng e O SU’s deni als. Complaint , filed July 25, 2023, pp. 13

- 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

- 19, 27, 28

- 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

- 34 ; 1 Requester’s Motion , p

. 2 ; Motion to Strike
, p. 3 ; Requester John Doe’s Reply Memorandum In Support of His Motion fo r Leave to Proceed Under a P seu do nym and to Permit Plaintiff to File Affidavit

1 The references t o spe cific pages of the Complaint are to the pages of the PDF copy posted on the Court ’s online docket. JOHN DOE
Requester

v.
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Respondent Case No. 2023

- 00498PQ Special Master Todd Marti

ORDERCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 2

- ORDER

Under Seal Pursuant to Respondent Ohio State University’s Motion to Strike , filed August 23, 2023. ( “ Reply

” ) , p

. 4

. {¶3} Requester filed this case under the pseudonym of “John Doe.” His complaint set forth the ad dr ess of his coun sel, rather than his own address. Because that appeared
to violate Civ. R. 10(A), the special master ordered Requester to file either an amended complaint setting forth his name and address or a motion for lea ve to proceed under a
p seud ony m. {¶4} Requester cho se the latter option . He supported that motion with hi s own affi davit , redacted to conceal his identity. OSU filed a memorandum opposing Requester’s M

otion and a cross motion to strike Requester’s redacted aff idavit. Those
matters a re r ipe fo r decision. E ntry , filed Aug u st 3, 2023; Requester’s Motion ; Order
, entered August 14, 2023; Motion to Strike; Reply

. II. Analysis. A. Requester may proceed under a pseudonym b ecause Civ. R. 10(A) is clearly inapplicable to this particular special st atut o ry pro ce eding and i nconsistent with R.C. 2743.7 5 in cases involving the R.C. 149.43(B)( 4 ) right to anonymity

. {¶5} The requirement that a party initiating litigation disclose its name and address is set out in Civ. R. 10(A). However, Civ. R. 1(C)(8) provi des th a t ind ividual civil rules , “ to the exte nt that they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable, shall not apply * ** in *** special statutory proceedings , ” and proceedings under R. C . 2743.75 are special statutory proceedings. A ndes v. Ohio AG's Off ice , C t . of Cl. No. 2017

- 00144

- PQ, 2017

- Ohio

- 4251, ¶ 7 , adopted, May 31, 20 17 (McGrath, J.). R.C. 2743.03(D) similarly provides that the Civil Rules do not apply to Court of Claims actions when individual r ules are “ inconsistent with ” provisions of R.C. Chapt e r 2743

. Requester’s Motion therefore turns on whether Civ. R. 10(A) is “clearly inappl icable” to or “inconsistent with” R.C. 2743.75. {¶6} Civ. R. 10(A) is clearly inapplicable to this proceeding because it would deprive Requester of a st

atutory right

. A rule i s cl ea rly inapplicable to a special statutory proceeding if it would nullify statutory rights the proceeding is intended to vindicate. For example, Tower City Properties v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 49 Ohio St.3d 67, 551Case No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 3

- ORDER

N.E.2d 122 (1990) , fou nd a c i v il r ule cl early inapplicable because it would “render ineffective” one party’s statutory right to review of an administrative action , a right it had invoked before the litigation

. Id . at 70. {¶7} R.C. 149.43(B)(4) gives requesters a sta tutory right to ano nym i ty w hen

se eking public record s. This Requester exercised that right by submitting his requests and related correspondence anonymously. Complaint , pp. 13

- 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

- 19, 27, 28

- 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

- 34 . He continued to assert tha t right by filing t his cas e under a pseudonym. Civ. R. 10(A), if applied, would deny him that statutory right by forcing him to disclose his identity. That would “render ineffective” a statutory right previously invoked, making Civ. R. 10(A) “clearly inappli cable.” {¶8} Civ. R. 10(

A ) i s in consis tent with R.C. 2 743.75

— in cases asserting a right to anonymity under R.C. 149.43(B)(4) . That is true on two levels. {¶9} First, applying Civ. R. 10(A) would be inconsistent with R.C. 2743.75(A)’s stated goal of providing “ an exp editious and ec ono m ica l pro cedure ” fo r resolving public records disputes in cases involving the R .C. 149.43(B)(4) right to anonymity. The legislature uses terms in accordance with their common usage

. R.C. 1.42

. Taking those terms in reverse order, “ econom ical ” is commonly u se d to c onnot e efficiency and the conservation of resources

. “ E xpeditious” is commonly understood to mean quick, prompt, and with alacrity. Applying Civ. R. 10(A) to cases brought by requesters asserting the R.C. 149.43(B) (4) right to ano nymity would requ i r e preli m inary proceedings exploring possible grounds for excusing compliance with the rule , requir ing the court and the parties
to consume time and money before they reach the underlying dispute. That would also lengthen the otherwise co mpresse d proceedi n g s envis i oned b y R.C. 27453.75 as a whole. That would be inconsistent with the expedition and economy R.C. 2743.75 directs

. {¶10} Second, applying Civ. R. 10(A) could deter requesters asserting anonymity from using the streamlined proceedings the General Ass e m bly pla in ly sou ght to
encourage by enacting R.C. 2473.75 . That is an indicium of inconsistency under R.C. 2743.03(D)

. Radojcsics v. Ohio State Reformatory , 52 Ohio Misc. 73, 75, 368 N.E.2d 1284 (Ct. of Cl.1977)

.

*** Two other points bear noting here.Case No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 4

- ORDER

{¶11} First, thi s is a close cas e, but the tie breaker controlling public records cases compel s this result. Civ. R. 10(A) codifies the strong presumption against anonymous litigation

. However, the principles just discussed provide equally strong b ases for depa r ting from t hat r ule in cas es invo lving R.C. 149.43(B)(4)

. O ther precedents command that doubts in public records cases be resolved in favor of vigorous enforcement of R.C. 149.43

. State ex rel. Warren Newspapers v. Hutson , 70 Ohio St.3d 619, 621, 640 N.E

. 2d 174 (199 4) ; S tate ex rel. M organ v. City of New Lexington , 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006

- Ohio

- 6365, 857 N.E.2d 1208, ¶ 28 ; State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones , 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008

- Ohio

- 4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 13

. The balance therefore tips in fa vor of protec t ing the rig ht to anonymity given by R.C. 1 4 9.43(B)(4). {¶12} Second, the rationale for this holding only applies to cases involving R.C. 149.43(B)(4) anonymity issues. Civ. R. 10(A) furthers important interests. "Identifying the parties to the pr oc eeding is * * * important ” beca use the “public has a legit imate interest in knowing which disputes involving which parties are before *** courts that are supported with tax payments and exist ultimately to serve the American public. " Doe v. Bruner , 12th Dist . Clinton N o . CA2011

- 07

- 013, 2012

- Ohio

- 761, ¶ 5 ( authori ties and internal punctuation omitted). Those interests are only counterbalanced here by the policy of anonymity unambiguously codified in R.C. 149.43(B)(4).

B. Requester has not met his burden of pro of under Su p
. R. 45(E). {¶13} The m otions about Request er’s affidavit are governed by Sup

. R. 45(E)(2). That rule “ authorizes a court to restrict public access to a document only ‘ if it finds by clear and convincing e vidence that the presumption of allowing publi c access i s outweighed b y a h igher interes t. ’” St ate ex rel. Cin. Enquirer v. Shanahan , 166 Ohio St.3d 382, 2022

- Ohio

- 448, 185 N.E.3d 1089 , ¶ 21 (emphasis added) . The “ party promoting the restriction has the bu rden of proof. ” Id

. {¶14} That requires a substanti al showing

. “ Clear and c onvin cing evidence is mor e than a preponderance of the evidence,” but is evidence “that will produce in the trier of fact's mind a firm belief as to the fact sought to be established.” S tate ex rel. Griffin v. Doe , 165 Ohio St.3d 57 7, 2021

- Oh i o - 3626, 180 N .E.3d 1123, ¶ 5 (a uthorit ies and internal punctuation omitted)

. Given that, the burden imposed by Sup. R. 45(E) is not carried withCase No. 2023

- 00498PQ

- 5

- ORDER

conclusory assertions. State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff , 132 Ohio St.3d 481, 2012

- Ohio

- 3328, 974 N.E.2d 89 , ¶ 3 4

. {¶15} Th is Requeste r’s jus tification for redaction , his cursory assertions about retaliation , are conclusory at best

. They provide far less substance than other showing s found insufficient to satisfy Sup. R. 45(E)(2). See e.g. Wolff, 132 Ohio S t.3d 481, ¶ ¶ 7 , 3 4. They fall w ell sho rt of clear and convincing evidence

. III. Conclusion. {¶16} Based on the foregoing, the special master:

- G rants Requester’s Moti on to proceed under a pseudonym;

- Denies Requester’s Motion to file a redacted affidavit; a nd

- Gra n ts Respondent’ s Mot ion to Strik e. Exhib it A to Requester’s Motion shall be stricken from the record of this case.

TODD R. MARTI Special Master

Filed September 6 , 2023 Sent to S.C. Reporter 10 / 5 /23