Opinion ID: 2691026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mandamus Cases

Text: {¶ 10} Bell filed complaints in the court of appeals for writs of mandamus to compel Brooks to provide copies of the requested CORSA records in accordance with R.C. 149.43 and 149.431. Brooks submitted answers in the three mandamus cases, and he moved to consolidate the cases for purposes of evidence, briefing, and decision. {¶ 11} Following a conference before a court of appeals magistrate, on January 20, 2010, the magistrate granted Brooks’s motion and consolidated the mandamus cases and ordered the parties to file evidence and briefs on only the issue whether CORSA is a public office for purposes of the Public Records Act. The parties then filed evidence and briefs relating to that specific issue. 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 12} The magistrate issued a decision recommending that the court of appeals deny the writs of mandamus because Bell had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that CORSA is the functional equivalent of a public office so as to be subject to the Public Records Act. Bell filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. In his objections, Bell argued that the magistrate had erroneously narrowed the issue to whether he had established that CORSA was the functional equivalent of a public office, even though his mandamus claims were broader. Bell further claimed that he had established that CORSA was the functional equivalent of a public office. Brooks submitted a response to the objections in which he asserted that Bell’s objections should be stricken because the document was signed by Bell on behalf of the attorney in violation of Civ.R. 11 and that Bell had waived his broader mandamus claims because he had agreed that his claims could be resolved on the narrow issue of whether CORSA was the functional equivalent of a public office. {¶ 13} In September 2010, the court of appeals entered a judgment overruling Bell’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, adopting the decision, and denying the requested writs of mandamus. {¶ 14} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of Bell’s appeal as of right from the court of appeals’ judgment.1