Hicks v. Union Twp.

• Decision Date: 04 May 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-00024PQ
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 2663
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER RICHARD HICKS Requester v. UNION TOWNSHIP, CLERMONT COUNTY, TRUSTEES Respondent
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-2663

CHRISTOPHER RICHARD HICKS Requester
v.
UNION TOWNSHIP, CLERMONT COUNTY, TRUSTEES Respondent

No. 2022-00024PQ

Court of Claims of Ohio

May 4, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 8/4/22

DECISION AND ENTRY

Patrick E. Sheeran Judge

{¶1} Respondent Union Township, Clermont County, Trustees (Township) objects to a Report and Recommendation in this public-records case. The Court overrules the Township's objections for reasons set forth below.

I. Background

{¶2} On January 11, 2022, Requester Christopher Richard Hicks filed a Complaint against the Township. In the Complaint, Hicks states,

On December 23, and 31, 2021, I made a record request pertaining to a December 17, 2021 meeting that involved two elected officials (Trustee Logue & Fiscal Officer Campbell), two officials-elect (Dills and Becker) and others The township maintains it was not subject to the Open Meetings Act (which I am not disputing here). Within almost 200 pages provided, some were redacted asserting "attorney-client privilege" or "confidential information" I asked, and was denied, unredacted versions of five documents. I am filing this case over four documents. They are as follows

Exhibit 1: A note from Logue to Cory Wright (administrator) that contains other streams. It starts with information from Becker for which there is no privilege. The bottom of page 1 is an email from Logue to Becker and Dills. The sharing was not from the law director, not pertaining to an executive

1

session, was not Logue asking for or receiving legal advice. Any privilege was waived. The entirety of Exhibit 1 should be provided unredacted.

Exhibit 2: An email from Logue to Wright that redacts Logue's comments. They do not seem privileged and simply copying the law director, Barbiere, does not make Logue's comment privileged. The entirety of Exhibit 2 should be provided without redaction.

Exhibit 3: An email from Logue to Wright. Logue is not asking for or receiving legal advice. Copying the law director does not make the material privileged. The entirety of Exhibit 3 should be provided without redaction.

Exhibit 4: A document from the Police Chief that was used in the December 17 meeting and is addressed only to Wright. The entirety of Exhibit 4 should be provided without redaction other than actual redactable information (ex: social security number). I received a denial to get unredacted copies of this information on January 3, 2022 and January 4, 2022. One easy step for the court would be to perform an in camera inspection of the documents in question. Note: If the material was privileged (protected by the Public Records Act), then I will contend, in a different court, that the meeting was subject to the Open Meetings Act.

{¶3} The Court appointed a Special Master who referred the case for mediation. After mediation failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties, the case was returned to the docket of the Special Master. The Township moved to dismiss Hicks's Complaint.

2

{¶4} On April 21, 2022, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R). The Special Master finds that none of the defenses raised in the Township's Motion To Dismiss is conclusively shown on the face of the Complaint. (R&R, 3.) The Special Master therefore recommends denying the Township's Motion To Dismiss.

3

(R&R, 3.) The Special Master makes several findings in the Report and Recommendation. ^[1] The Special Master recommends that

the court order respondent to produce unredacted copies of requester's Exhibits 1 through 3 and disclose all information in Exhibit 4 other than the first names of the officer's immediate family. The special master recommends the court deny requester's claim for production of the information redacted from respondent's Trustee Conflicts of Interest memorandum. It is recommended costs be assessed to respondent.

4

(R&R, 14.)

{¶5} On April 29, 2022, the Township filed written objections to the Special Master's R&R. According to a Certificate of Service accompanying the objections, the Township, through counsel, served a copy of the Township's objections on Hicks "via electronic...