Opinion ID: 4228702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to compel access

Text: {¶ 11} We have consistently required in camera inspection of requested documents before determining whether they are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks, 145 Ohio St.3d 408, 2016-Ohio-1192, 49 N.E.3d 1296, ¶ 33. The Dispatch contends that it has a due-process right to participate in that inspection. But we considered and rejected the same argument in State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine, 135 Ohio St.3d 191, 2013Ohio-199, 985 N.E.2d 467: If the court were to require the disclosure of the subject records in discovery to permit relator to contest the applicability of a claimed exception, it would render the case moot. And [relator] can still contest the applicability of a claimed exception by challenging the validity of unsealed evidence that the public-records custodian submits to support its reliance on the exception.    Thus, due process does not prevent the court’s consideration of the pertinent records submitted under seal for in camera review. 4 January Term, 2017 (Citation omitted.) Id. at ¶ 23. The Dispatch has not offered any basis to distinguish its asserted due-process right from that considered in Lanham. Thus, we deny the motion to compel access.