Court Opinion

ID: 9882957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:27.925272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:20.519571
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Knapp v. Lorain Cty. Domestic Court Juvenile Div., 2023-Ohio-3621.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

    AARON CHRISTOPHER KNAPP                             Case No. 2023-00580PQ

         Requester                                      Judge Lisa L. Sadler

         v.                                             JUDGMENT ENTRY

    LORAIN COUNTY DOMESTIC COURT
    JUVENILE DIVISION

         Respondent

        {¶1} On September 7, 2023, pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), a Special Master
issued a Recommendation Of Dismissal, recommending dismissal of this case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because Requester seeks court records.1 The Court concludes
that Requester’s Complaint should be dismissed for reasons other than lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
        {¶2} In this case, Requester seeks the following from Respondent:
                Requestor would ask for any emails that were submitted to the court
        by the Lorain Police Department in regards to the employment of
        Crossroads Therapist Aaron C Knapp. Requestor also would request
        copies of any emails in regards to Aaron C Knapp’s employment as a
        contract therapist with the Crossroads Track A program. Requestor would
        request any emails between the juvenile court and the Lorain Police in
        regards to Aaron C Knapps employment or affliation [sic] with the courts.
        Requestor is the subject of the emails and requests under Sunshine Law.
        Any communications made to or sent by Tim Weitzel (Juv Court
        Administrator) referencing “Aaron Knapp” or “repairing a relationship with
        Lorain Police”.

1      Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), “[n]otwithstanding any provision to the contrary in [R.C. 2743.75],
upon the recommendation of the special master, the court of claims on its own motion may dismiss the
complaint at any time.”
Case No. 2023-00580PQ                       -2-                      JUDGMENT ENTRY

(Public Records Request dated August 5, 2023, attached to Complaint; Recommendation
of Dismissal, 1.)
       {¶3} A review of Requester’s Complaint (and attachments) discloses that
Requester has failed to disclose the date(s) or range of dates of the requested records.
A review of the Special Master’s Recommendation Of Dismissal does not identify the
date(s) or range of dates of the requested court records.
       {¶4} “The threshold issue in public-records cases is whether the Public Records
Act or the Rules of Superintendence govern the request.” State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt, 169
Ohio St.3d 223, 2022-Ohio-1627, 203 N.E.3d 665, ¶ 10, citing State ex rel. Parisi v.
Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Griev. Commt., 159 Ohio St.3d 211, 2019-Ohio-5157, 150
N.E.3d 43, ¶ 19. In Kurt, the Ohio Supreme Court directed:
                The Public Records Act requires a public office to make copies of
       public records available to any person on request, within a reasonable
       period. R.C. 149.43(B)(1). But when a requester seeks public records from
       a court, the Rules of Superintendence generally apply. Parisi at ¶ 21-27 (the
       Rules of Superintendence apply to requests for documents in attorney-
       discipline cases); State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Byrd, 160 Ohio St.3d 141,
       2020-Ohio-2766, 154 N.E.3d 57, ¶ 11-15 (the Rules of Superintendence
       apply to access case documents only in cases commenced on or after July
       1, 2009).
Kurt at ¶ 11.
       {¶5} Pursuant to Sup.R. 47(A)(1), “[a]ccess to case documents in actions
commenced prior to July 1, 2009, shall be governed by federal and state law.” In this
instance, if Requester seeks access to court records in actions commenced before July
1, 2009, then Requester’s request would be governed by federal law and state law, which
includes the Ohio Public Records Act. See State ex rel. Bey v. Byrd, 160 Ohio St.3d 141,
2020-Ohio-2766, 154 N.E.3d 57, ¶ 12 (Rules of Superintendence are inapplicable to a
request for court records involving a proceeding commenced in 2006). In such an
instance, Requester ostensibly has raised a cause of action cognizable by this forum in
his Complaint because this Court has statutory jurisdiction to resolve disputes alleging a
Case No. 2023-00580PQ                                  -3-                             JUDGMENT ENTRY

denial of access to public records in violation of the Ohio Public Records Act.2 See
Nichelle Harvey, Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2023-00252PQ and 2023-00253 (June 13, 2023).
        {¶6} In Harvey, after a requester sought court records, a special master issued a
Recommendation To Dismiss, recommending dismissal of the cases for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The Court adopted the recommendation for dismissal but for reasons
other than a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court recognized in Harvey that under
Sup.R. 47(A)(1) “[a]ccess to case documents in actions commenced prior to July 1, 2009,
shall be governed by federal and state law” and if the requester sought access to case
documents in actions commenced before July 1, 2009, then the requester’s request would
be governed by federal law and state law, which includes the Ohio Public Records Act.
        {¶7} Thus, applying Harvey, when determining whether the Ohio Public Records
Act or the Rules of Superintendence should govern a public-records request for court
records, consideration should be given to whether the request pertains to court records
in actions commenced before July 1, 2009, or after July 1, 2009. In this instance, neither
the Complaint nor the Recommendation Of Dismissal identifies the date, or dates, that
pertain to the court records that are sought.
        {¶8} Under Ohio law, a requester “must establish entitlement to relief in an action
filed in the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.75 by clear and convincing evidence.” Viola
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110315, 2021-Ohio-4210,
¶ 16, citing Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 (5th Dist.).
See Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-

2        The General Assembly has conferred statutory jurisdiction upon this Court to resolve disputes
alleging a denial of access to public records in violation of the Ohio Public Records Act. See R.C. 2743.75.
Under R.C. 2743.75(A)(1), except for a court that hears a mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43, the
Court of Claims is the sole and exclusive authority in this state that adjudicates or resolves complaints
based on alleged violations of R.C. 149.43. See R.C. 2743.75(A)(1). And pursuant to R.C.
2743.03(A)(3)(b), the Court of Claims has exclusive, original jurisdiction under R.C. 2743.75 to hear
complaints alleging a denial of access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B) regardless of whether
the public office or person responsible for public records is an office or employee of the state or of a political
subdivision. See R.C. 2743.03(A)(3)(b). See generally Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s
Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11.

        If Requester seeks case documents for cases that commenced after July 1, 2009, then Sup.R. 44
through 47 are the sole vehicle for obtaining records. State ex rel. Harris v. Pureval, 155 Ohio St.3d 343,
2018-Ohio-4718, 121 N.E.3d 337, ¶ 10. Accord Fairley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor, Ct. of Cl. No. 2019-
00955PQ, 2020-Ohio-1425, ¶ 16, adopted by, objection overruled by, judgment entered by Fairley v.
Cuyahoga Cty., 2020-Ohio-1426, 2020 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 28 (Ohio Ct. Cl., Mar. 12, 2020).
Case No. 2023-00580PQ                         -4-                       JUDGMENT ENTRY

Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 32. It is a requester’s burden to prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the requested records exist and are public records maintained
by a respondent. See State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-
1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 8. And a complainant’s “burden of production” under R.C.
2743.75 “is to plead and prove facts showing that the requester sought an identifiable
public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public office or records custodian
did not make the record available.” Welsh-Huggins at ¶ 33.
         {¶9} Upon independent review, the Court finds that in this case Requester has
failed to identify with reasonable clarity the court records that Requester seeks. See State
ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman, 92 Ohio St.3d 312, 314, 750 N.E.2d 156 (2001) (request for “any
and all records generated * * * containing any reference whatsoever to [a person]”
constituted a failure in a duty to identify the records with sufficient clarity). Consequently,
Requester has failed to establish an entitlement to relief by clear and convincing
evidence. The Court therefore determines that dismissal of Requester’s Complaint is
warranted.
         {¶10} Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), and upon the Special Master’s
recommendation, the Court sua sponte dismisses Requester’s Complaint but for reasons
other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction.        Court costs are assessed against
Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of
entry upon the journal.

                                            LISA L. SADLER
                                            Judge

Filed September 14, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/5/23