Source: https://www.martindale.com/government/article_Dinsmore-Shohl-LLP_1558962.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:58:09+00:00

Document:
When a public records request is received, it is often difficult to know what you must supply and, if you feel you should deny the request, what steps you should take to ensure you are in compliance with the law. Defending your institution’s decision to deny a public records request can not only be costly, but a lawsuit over what unfortunately often appears to be an attempt to hide something can detrimentally affect your institution’s reputation. Every state has their own regulations concerning the release of public records. In addition, depending on what type of institution you are operating (such as an educational facility), federal law can come into play. Add to that possible attorney-client or work-product confidentiality exemptions, and the decision as to whether you must disclose or should deny a public records request can quickly become convoluted.
Ohio State cited various reasons for denying the requests related to Sarniak and the NCAA investigation, including: (1) the overbreadth of the requests, (2) the fact that the NCAA investigation was “ongoing,” and (3) that some of the documents were protected by federal confidentiality law.5 The court’s opinion clarifies a significant amount of Ohio public records law as well as provides some broadly applicable lessons about what a public agency should and should not do in response to a public records request.
Consider all the exemptions the document may fall under before complying with the request.
Do not be vague about the reason you are denying the request.
Your response should provide the requesting entity with information about the reasoning behind your denial. For example, if their request was overly broad, make sure that you explain the way in which your public records are stored and ask that they rephrase their request in accordance with this system. In Ohio, a public office is required to keep on-hand a copy of their current records retention policy and inform the requester of its contents as well as provide them with an opportunity to revise their request to comply with this system.16 If, however, your basis for denial is not something as general as the request being overly broad, cite legal authority supporting your denial of the request.
When possible, supply partial documents with any protected personal identifying information redacted.
The Ohio Supreme Court provided clarification on these two terms in State ex rel. ESPN. Citing a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case, the court confirmed that “education records” should encompass any document that directly relates to a student and is maintained by the student’s university.18 It is not limited to just academic grades or attainment.19 A record is considered “maintained,” for the purposes of FERPA, whenever the institution has implemented a systematic filing and storage structure that organizes and retains these educational records.
Reply promptly to initial requests as well as any subsequent correspondence from the requesting entity.
Not only is it a statutory requirement in Ohio to reply promptly to a public records request,22 it can earn you favor in the eyes of the court. Although no one wants the denial of a public records request to result in a lawsuit, you should respond to a request in a manner that will reflect upon you positively if it does. Document the dates of all incoming and outgoing correspondence, even phone calls. It would be wise to maintain a file or record pertaining to every request received, the intermediate correspondence performed, the documents provided or denied access to, and the ultimate disposition.
Continue to work with the requesting entity even after a lawsuit is filed.
One of the pitfalls of ESPN’s case was that their complaint only asked the court to compel Ohio State to comply with the records request. They did not ask that Ohio State be ordered to instruct ESPN on how to revise their request or suggest that the denial resulted in an unreasonable delay in ultimately complying with the request for public records.23 This general lack of an alleged injury left the court with no basis upon which to award ESPN any remuneration.24 Although Ohio State did not instruct ESPN on how to revise their records request in their original denial, they did openly communicate with ESPN and continued to work with them even after the commencement of the case. If a public agency illustrates that they are sincerely trying to be responsive to a public records request, including providing instructions on how to revise an overbroad request, their potential claimant may not be able to allege a genuine injury.
The above considerations are certainly not all-inclusive. There will be special circumstances that arise with each public records request received by an educational institution. Because public records laws are typically construed in favor of disclosure, it is advisable to be well-versed in the state and federal rules applicable to your institution’s records and have a system in place to identify what steps to take when responding to a request.
(1) State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2012-Ohio-2690, slip op. (June 19, 2012).
(6) OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 149.43(A)(1) (LexisNexis 2012).
(7) Id. at § 149.43(A)(1)(v).
(9) 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b) (2006).
(10) U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., FERPA General Guidance for Students (February 2011), http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/students.html.
(12) See e.g., State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local Sch. Dist., 131 Ohio St. 3d 10 (2011): State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cnty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St. 3d 537 (2009).
(13) State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2012-Ohio-2690, slip op. at 2¿3 (June 19, 2012).
(15) See, e.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 149.43(B) (LexisNexis 2012).
(17) 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b) (2006). It is important to note that FERPA only protects from disclosure records that pertain to students. Teachers, coaches, and administrators are not protected by FERPA because they are employees, not students. See e.g., Briggs v. Bd. of Trs. Columbus State Cmty. Coll., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92950 (S.D. Ohio July 8, 2009); Ellis v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (N.D. Ohio 2004). This is why Ohio State was not protected from releasing records pertaining to former coach Jim Tressel or any other Ohio State official or administrator.
(18) State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2012-Ohio-2690, slip op. at 9 (June 19, 2012) (citing State ex rel. Miami Student v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797, 812 (6th Cir. 2002)).
(21) OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 149.43(B)(1) (LexisNexis 2012).
(23) State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2012-Ohio-2690, slip op. at 5 (June 19, 2012).

References: v. 
 § 149
 § 149
 § 1232
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 149
 § 1232
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 149
 v.