Grant v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

• Decision Date: 08 March 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-00114PQ
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 1356
• Parties: DENNIS D. GRANT Requester v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION CENTER Respondent
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-1356

DENNIS D. GRANT Requester v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION CENTER Respondent

No. 2022-00114PQ

Court of Claims of Ohio

March 8, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 4/25/22

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

JEFF CLARK SPECIAL MASTER

{¶1} The Ohio Public Records Act (PRA) requires copies of public records to be made available to any person upon request. R.C 149.43(B)(1). This action is filed under R.C. 2743.75, which is intended "to provide for an expeditious and economical procedure" to enforce the PRA in the Court of Claims. R.C. 2743.75(A)

{¶2} On May 12, 2021, July 8, 2021, August 12, 2021, August 13 2021, August 16, 2021, August 17, 2021, September 23, 2021 November 17, 2021, and January 11, 2022, requester Dennis Grant sought records from respondent Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Correctional Reception Center (ODRC/CRC)

generally pertaining to employees of the ODRC whom [Grant's client] believed would constitute valid "comparables" in connection with her pending employment civil rights violation allegations.

(Complaint at 2.) By requester's count the complaint includes approximately 115 partially overlapping records requests, almost all allegedly unfulfilled. (Id. at 2-7.) The complaint establishes that litigation of these requests would require determination of numerous and diverse claims, an undetermined but large number of documents, and public records exceptions and other defenses including but not limited to:

• ambiguity, overbreadth, and voluminosity

• requests for information rather than records

• non-existence of records

• mootness

• exceptions under R.C. 4141.21

• exceptions under R.C. 5120.21(F)

• likely multiple security and privacy exceptions related to law enforcement

• extent of redaction

{¶3} In this special statutory action, the special master may sua sponte consider whether a complaint should be dismissed for any reason. "Upon the recommendation of the special master, the court of claims on its own motion may dismiss the complaint at any time." R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). On review, the special master concludes that resolution of this dispute is unlikely to be expeditiously litigated under the procedures available in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the parties suggests that mediation is unlikely to resolve any substantial portion of the unfulfilled requests. Because the parties may not conduct discovery, R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(a), the determination of fact-dependent claims would likely require multiple factual inquiries by...