Opinion ID: 6226738
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proceedings in the common pleas court

Text: {¶ 3} On June 24, 2020, M.R. was on duty providing crowd control and security for a meeting at Cincinnati’s city hall. M.R. alleges that he was in a hallway “occupied by a loud, unruly crowd of people that were anti-police and urging City Council to defund the police” when he made an “okay” hand gesture to someone who had asked him about the status of another officer who had just left the scene. Some people in the crowd interpreted the gesture as a white-supremacy hand signal. M.R. alleges that the next day, several people made derogatory comments about him on social media, portraying him as a white supremacist. In addition, two people filed complaints about M.R.’s conduct with the city’s Citizen Complaint Authority. See Cincinnati City Code, Article XXVIII (creating the Citizen Complaint Authority). {¶ 4} On July 22, 2020, M.R. filed a complaint in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court against Julie Niesen, James Noe, Terhas White, Alissa Gilley, “Friends of Bones,” and John Does Nos. 1 through 20. M.R. alleged claims of false- 2 January Term, 2022 light invasion of privacy, defamation, injury based on the criminal act of making a false claim against a peace officer (civil remedy permitted under R.C. 2307.60), and negligence/recklessness. When M.R. filed his complaint, he sought leave to proceed under a pseudonym and to file under seal his affidavit in support of his motion for a temporary restraining order. The affidavit included some personal details about M.R. (including his actual name and the fact that he has a wife and children) and had attached to it as exhibits several social-media posts and the citizen complaints that had been filed against him. Judge Shanahan granted M.R.’s requests that same day. {¶ 5} On July 27, the Enquirer filed a motion under Sup.R. 45(F) to unseal the affidavit. Volokh filed a similar motion on August 5. The Enquirer later withdrew its motion, but Judge Shanahan eventually held a hearing on Volokh’s motion. The hearing consisted only of arguments by counsel; although M.R.’s counsel played a surveillance video of the June 24 incident, no witnesses testified, and no evidence was admitted. M.R.’s counsel argued that it was appropriate to allow M.R. to proceed using a pseudonym and to keep the affidavit sealed because people were acting “with actual malice intending to injure [M.R.] by releasing his private, personal, confidential information.” {¶ 6} Judge Shanahan issued a second sealing order on September 21, 2020, finding that “risk of injury to persons, individual privacy rights and interests, and public safety” supported restricting public access to M.R.’s name and affidavit. The order stated: The plaintiff, a police officer, is involved in the apprehension of very violent and dangerous criminals. The officer’s job duties expose the officer to physical harm. To require that a document with identifying information be available to the public would further risk injury to the officer and others. In the current climate, with the uptick in violent acts being perpetrated against law enforcement both on-duty and off, 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO active and retired, the Court finds there is a real and serious threat of physical harm. In the present case, one defendant has threatened, in writing, to publish the officer’s personal identifying information and other information for the purpose of “doxing”[1] the officer. The Court finds this to be a real and present threat. {¶ 7} Although Judge Shanahan did not expressly identify the evidence supporting her finding that M.R. had been threatened, she likely was referring to a social-media post that was attached as an exhibit to M.R.’s affidavit. The author of that post stated that he was thinking about publicizing M.R.’s name, address, and phone numbers but expressed concern about the legality of doing so. After exchanging messages with others, the poster ultimately stated that he would keep the information to himself, “[f]or now.” {¶ 8} Judge Shanahan’s second sealing order continued to allow M.R. to proceed pseudonymously but it modified the original order by making parts of M.R.’s affidavit available to the public. The partially redacted affidavit omitted all references to M.R.’s name and to the fact that M.R. has a wife and children. The exhibits to the affidavit remained sealed.