Opinion ID: 4535203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion for in camera review

Text: {¶ 16} In Ullman’s motion for in camera review, she asks us to order Klein to produce unredacted copies of “the list of civil cases    on page 4 and 115 of [Klein’s] evidence and Exhibit 1 and 2 of [Ullmann’s] evidence for inspection by this court.” The records Ullmann seeks to have this court review in camera have been identified by Klein as “Environmental Cases Received (May 15-December 31, 2018)” and “Environmental Cases Received (January 1-May 16, 2019).” {¶ 17} Klein redacted “the status column of the case lists [because they] contain notes, communication with clients, case status, and other information regarding the case documented by employees of the City Attorney’s Office.” Dunbar avers in his affidavit that “[t]he Status field on the database is used internally by attorneys, paralegals, law clerks, or administrative assistants to document notes, communication with clients, case status, or other information regarding the case.” He further avers that “[t]he information within the Status field is used solely within the Zone Initiative Section in preparation for or during the pendency of a civil action.” 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 18} “Exceptions to the Public Records Act ‘must be strictly construed against the public-records custodian, and a records custodian bears the burden of establishing the applicability of an exception.’ ” State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545, 2018-Ohio-5111, 122 N.E.3d 1208, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, at ¶ 28. R.C. 149.43(A)(4) defines “trial preparation record” as “any record that contains information that is specifically compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or in defense of, a civil or criminal action or proceeding, including the independent thought processes and personal trial preparation of an attorney.” Records exempted from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(4) include “attorney notes of trial proceedings    and legal research conducted by the law department” as long as the records were “specifically compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or in defense of” civil actions. See State ex rel. Nix v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 379, 384-385, 700 N.E.2d 12 (1998). {¶ 19} Ullmann disputes Klein’s assertion that he redacted only the portion of the records that qualify as trial-preparation records and contends that the reasons that Klein gave for the redactions “do not justify wholesale redaction.” She “seriously doubt[s] if the redacted portions are in fact legitimate work product.” According to Ullman, the source of her doubt is her “constant” work with Franklin County assistant prosecuting attorneys who “make notes on their files of status all the time.” Ullmann posits that the redacted information contained in the status column of the case lists Klein provided her is “likely to some extent similar” to the status notes she has observed while working with assistant prosecuting attorneys, which is “generally information such as whether the case was continued and for what reason or if some agreement for discovery was made with counsel.” {¶ 20} Ullmann’s contentions are mere speculation and do not support a decision by this court to conduct an in camera review of the redacted documents Klein provided her. In camera review is unnecessary when the basis of the request 8 January Term, 2020 for review is speculation, rather than sufficient, credible evidence. Nix at 384. Ullmann offers no credible evidence to overcome Klein’s reasonable assertion that he redacted only the portion of the records that are excepted from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(4) as trial-preparation records. We deny Ullmann’s motion for in camera review.