Court Opinion

ID: 9376511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 20:05:59.143313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.166567
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Sell v. Trumbull Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2023-Ohio-627.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 JAMIE L. SELL                                         Case No. 2022-00867PQ

         Requester                                     Special Master Todd Marti

         v.                                            RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

 TRUMBULL COUNTY COURT OF
 COMMON PLEAS

         Respondent

        {¶1} This matter comes before the court on a R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) examination of
the complaint. Based on that examination the special master recommends that the case
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
        Background
        {¶2} Requester Jamie Sell made a R.C. 149.43 public records request for a copy
of the audiotape of a criminal trial held in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas.
The request was directed to that court. The court’s administrative judge considered and
denied the request based on the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio. Sells
filed this case pursuant to R.C, 2743.75 and named the Trumbull County court as the
respondent. Ohio Court of Claims Public Records Access Complaint, filed December 22,
2023.
        {¶3} Mediation was unsuccessful and the case is back on this court’s active docket.
Notice of Termination of Mediation, entered February 14, 2023.
        Analysis
        {¶4} R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) requires the special master to examine complaints and
authorizes him to recommend dismissal if appropriate. A dismissal is appropriate if the
Case No. 2022-00867PQ                        -2-       RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

requester’s claims are beyond this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Isreal v. Franklin
Cty. Clerk, Ct. of Cl. No. 2019-00547PQ, 2019-Ohio-2630, ¶¶ 9-10. That is appropriate
here.
        {¶5} The Court of Claims “may exercise only such powers as are directly conferred
by legislative action.” State ex rel. DeWine v. Court of Claims of Ohio, 130 Ohio St.3d
244, 2011-Ohio-5283, 957 N.E.2d 280, ¶ 19. The extent of this court’s jurisdiction over
public records matters is set by R.C. 2743.75(A)(1). It gives the court jurisdiction over
claims alleging violations of R.C. 149.43(B). Requests for court records are outside the
scope of R.C.149.43(B), so cases seeking access to court records are beyond the
jurisdiction conferred by R.C. 2743.75. State ex rel. Harris v. Pureval, 155 Ohio St.3d 343,
2018-Ohio-4718, 121 N.E.3d 337, ¶ 10; Isreal, 2019-Ohio-2630, ¶¶ 8-10.
        {¶6} The record Sell seeks is a court record. She requested “the audio recording[]
of Austin T. Burke’s March 2017 criminal trial[.]” Complaint, p. 2. A “document …
submitted to a court … in a judicial action or proceeding” is a court record. Supp. R.
44(B), (C)(1) (emphasis added). The recording is a “document” because the term
“embraces any information stored on …any [] medium,” Black’s Law Dictionary, 609, (11th
Ed. 2019), “regardless of physical form or characteristic, manner of creation, or method
of storage.” Supp R. 44(B). It was “submitted to a court” because such recordings are
“maintained … in the manner directed by the trial court,” and “The trial court has custody
and control over the electronic recordings of proceedings,” Supp. R. 11(C) and the
comments thereto.. A criminal trial in a common pleas court is a “judicial proceeding.” The
recording is therefore a court record.
        {¶7} In sum, R.C. 2743.75(A) limits this court’s public records jurisdiction to cases
alleging violations of R.C. 149.43(B), claims for court records are beyond the scope of
R.C. 149.43(B), Sells seeks court records, so her claim is beyond this court’s jurisdiction.
Case No. 2022-00867PQ                        -3-       RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

        Recommendation
        {¶8} The special master recommends that the court dismiss this case pursuant to
R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) because Sell’s claim is beyond the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
        {¶9} The special master further recommends that Requester Sell should bear the
costs of this case.
        {¶10} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with
the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this
report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all
grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption
of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a
timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).

                                            TODD MARTI
                                            Special Master

Filed February 14, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/2/23