Court Opinion

ID: 9948784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 21:11:11.631008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:50.224338
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Jones v. Dept. of Youth Serv., 2024-Ohio-815.]

                               IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 MARCUS JONES                                             Case No. 2023-00633PQ

          Requester                                       Judge Lisa L. Sadler

          v.                                              DECISION AND ENTRY

 DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES

          Respondent

          {¶1} In this public-records case, Respondent objects, in part, to a Special Master’s
Report and Recommendation (R&R). Requester did not file objections or respond to
Respondent’s objection. The Court sustains Respondent’s objection for reasons that
follow.

    I.         Background
          {¶2} On September 26, 2023, Requester filed a public-records complaint in which
Requester alleges:
                 October 4th 2022 a request was made and October 28th 2022 a
          request was made. A response from Jacqulyn Doblinger was returned
          saying that she received the request but not one record was provided since
          I made the request.. I uploaded 16 emails in correspondence with emails
          asking for updates on the request, she responded to some emails but
          ignored the rest …. It’s been 11 months and not one request was made and
          I have email asking for the request. There was also no denial email in
          regards to the records request.
(Complaint, Sept. 26, 2023.)
          {¶3} The Court appointed a Special Master who did not refer the matter to
mediation because he “[found] that, based on the length of time that Requester’s public
records request has been pending, and the additional time that mediation would involve,
Case No. 2023-00633PQ                            -2-                    DECISION & ENTRY

mediation will not result in the expeditious resolution envisioned by R.C. 2743.75(A).”
(Scheduling Order, Oct. 3, 2023.) The Special Master did, however, establish deadlines
for briefing and filing of evidence. (Id.)
           {¶4} On November 30, 2023, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation. The Special Master recommends that (1) “Respondent be ordered to
produce unredacted copies of pp. 779, 779 [sic], 784-786, 791-793, 858-860, and 864-
866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence;” (2) “Requester recover his filing fee and
costs;” (3) “Respondent bear the balance of the costs of this case;” and (4) “[a]ll other
relief be denied.” (R&R, 8.)
           {¶5} On December 15, 2023, Respondent, through counsel, filed a written
objection to the Report and Recommendation. According to a Certificate of Service
accompanying the objection, Requester’s counsel sent a copy of Respondent’s objection
to Requester by email and certified mail, return receipt requested.

     II.      Law and Analysis
           {¶6} The General Assembly has created an alternative means to resolve public-
records disputes through the enactment of R.C. 2743.75. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson
Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11.
See R.C. 2743.75(A). 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-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.
           {¶7} A public-records custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an
exception to disclosure of a public record. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-
Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, paragraph two of the
syllabus. In Jones-Kelley, the Ohio Supreme Court held:
Case No. 2023-00633PQ                            -3-                          DECISION & ENTRY

               Exceptions to disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C.
               149.43, are strictly construed against the public-records
               custodian, and the custodian has the burden to establish the
               applicability of an exception. A custodian does not meet this
               burden if it has not proven that the requested records fall
               squarely      within    the   exception.      (State ex rel.    Carr v.
               Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351, 2006 Ohio 6714, 859 N.E.2d 948,
               P 30, followed.)
Kelley at paragraph two of the syllabus.
        {¶8} Respondent objects to the recommendation to produce unredacted copies of
any documents containing employee identification (ID) numbers on grounds that the
employee identification numbers are “security records” subject to R.C. 149.433
(Objection, 1), and alternatively, on grounds that its employee ID numbers “should be
withheld from public records under R.C. 1306.23.”                 (Objection, 3.)     Respondent’s
objection is accompanied by an affidavit of Kimberle Iquina, and employee of
Respondent. Respondent asks that it “not be required to produce unredacted copies of
pp. 784-786, 791-793, 858-860, and 864-866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence.”
(Objection, 4.)
        {¶9} The Court will first consider Respondent’s second argument, that the
employee ID numbers should be withheld from the public under R.C. 1306.23. In an
affidavit1 accompanying Respondent’s objection, Ms. Kimberle Iquina, who is employed
by Respondent in the Division of Legal Services as a Program Administrator 2, avers,
that (1), when she started her employment with the State of Ohio, she was assigned an
employee identification number (Affidavit, ¶ 3), (2) her employee ID number is her
username for many, if not all, the information technology hardware, software and
applications that she uses on a daily basis as an employee of Respondent (Affidavit, ¶ 4),
(3) her employee ID is her username to log on to her employer issued laptop and
Respondent’s virtual private network (VPN) when working remotely (Affidavit, ¶ 5), (4)

        1 Requester did not object to the submission of the affidavit or any other part of Respondent’s

objection.
Case No. 2023-00633PQ                           -4-                         DECISION & ENTRY

she uses her username to log on to Respondent’s secure wireless network when working
in the office (Id.), (5) her employee ID is also her username for Respondent’s Juvenile
Justice Case Management System and OnBase (document management system), which
contains confidential youth information and records protected by R.C. 5139.05(D) (Id.)
and (6) her employee ID is also her username for myOhio.gov, which she uses to access
her timesheet (Kronos), view her paycheck, update her personal information, and manage
her benefits. (Affidavit, ¶ 5.)
       {¶10} R.C. 1306.23 provides: “Records that would disclose or may lead to the
disclosure of records or information that would jeopardize the state’s continued use or
security of any computer or telecommunications devices or services associated with
electronic signatures, electronic records, or electronic transactions are not public records
for purposes of [R.C. 149.43].” Because the employee ID numbers are used as the
employee’s usernames as part of the security for Respondent’s computer systems, the
employee ID numbers are exempt from disclosure pursuant to R.C. 1306.23. This is in
accordance with Special Master’s decision that “usernames are therefore exempted from
public record status by R.C. 1306.23.”2 (R&R, p. 6.)         Therefore, Respondent’s objection
is SUSTAINED.
       {¶11} Because the Court has decided that the employee ID numbers are exempt
from public records status under R.C. 1306.23, the Court need not consider whether the
employee ID numbers are also exempt as security records pursuant to R.C. 149.433.
See City of Grove City v. Clark, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1369, 2002-Ohio-4549, ¶ 11
(actions or opinions are moot when they have become fictitious, colorable, hypothetical,
academic or dead); see also State ex rel. Karmasu v. Tate, 83 Ohio App.3d 199, 205,
614 N.E.2d 827 (4th Dist.1992) citing Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 4th Dist.
Ross No. 1790, at 4-5, 1992 WL 97805 (May 11, 1992) (a trial court “is not required to
consider any legal theory, or argument, beyond that which will adequately dispose of the
case at hand”). Accord PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Drug Enforcement
Administration (D.C.Cir.2004), 362 F.3d 786, 799, 360 U.S. App. D.C. 344 (Roberts, J.,

       2 It appears that Respondent did not inform the Special Master that its employees use their ID

numbers as usernames for certain computer systems.
Case No. 2023-00633PQ                             -5-                          DECISION & ENTRY

concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (expressing “the cardinal principle of
judicial restraint,” i.e., “if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide
more”).

    III.      Conclusion
           {¶12} The Court SUSTAINS Respondent’s objection for the reasons set forth
above. The Court adopts, in part, and rejects, in part, the Special Master’s Report and
Recommendation.                Specifically, the Court does not adopt the Special Master’s
recommendation that unredacted copies of pp. 779, 784-786, 791-793, 858-860, and 864-
866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence should be produced to Requester. The Court
ORDERS that (1) Respondent may redact employee ID numbers contained in pp. 779,
784-786, 791-793, 858-860, and 864-866 of Exhibit 9 of Respondent’s Evidence in its
production of records to Requester, (2) Respondent shall continue to produce the
requested videos as expeditiously as possible,3 (3) Requester is entitled to recover from
Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs
associated with the action that are incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees,
and (4) court costs are assessed against Respondent.
           {¶13} The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of
entry upon the journal.

                                                 LISA L. SADLER
                                                 Judge

Filed February 8, 2024
Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/7/24

        3 The Special Master noted that the production of the video records had not yet been completed at

the time of the Report and Recommendation, but he did not order a timeline for the remainder of the video
production. (R&R, 1, 8.) Nevertheless, the Special Master rejected Respondent’s justifications for the
delays in processing the video records (R&R, 7) and R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires that records be made
available within a reasonable period of time—which has already been exceeded. No objections were filed
regarding the production of the videos.