Diebert v. Lafferty

• Decision Date: 17 August 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-00699PQ
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 3052
• Parties: CHERYL AND CARA DIEBERT Requesters v. CHIEF LAFFERTY, VILLAGE OF NORTH BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-3052

CHERYL AND CARA DIEBERT Requesters
v.
CHIEF LAFFERTY, VILLAGE OF NORTH BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al

No. 2021-00699PQ

Court of Claims of Ohio

August 17, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/1/22

NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENT ENTRY ^[1]

PATRICK E. SHEERAN JUDGE

{¶1} On July 26, 2022, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation in this public-records case. Neither party has timely objected to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation.

{¶2} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects, this Court is required to "promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation."

{¶3} In the Report and Recommendation (R&R), the Special Master "recommends the court grant [Respondents'] motion to dismiss as to the October 20 and 25, 2021 requests." (Footnote omitted.) (R&R, 4.) The Special Master states, "With respect to the

1

other requests, the Special Master finds that the defenses of mootness and the nonexistence of additional records are not conclusively shown on the face of the complaint. Moreover, as the matter is now fully briefed these grounds are subsumed in the arguments to deny the claim on the merits. It is therefore recommended the motion to dismiss be denied with respect to all other claims." (R&R, 4.) The Special Master concludes:

Based on the pleadings, affidavits, and documents submitted in this action, the Special Master recommends the court find the claims for production of records are now moot, and that requesters have not shown by clear and convincing evidence that any additional responsive records exist, with one exception. The Special Master recommends the court find that respondents failed to produce several existing records responsive to the request for procedures on handling complaints against [North Baltimore Police Department] officers. The Special Master further recommends the court find respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by not producing the records that it did provide within a reasonable period of time It is recommended requesters be entitled to recover from respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by requesters, and that court costs be assessed to respondent

(R&R at 14.)

{¶4} Upon review, the Court finds no error...