Portsmouth Daily Times v. The Vill. of New Bos., 2021-00414PQ

CourtCourt of Claims of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPATRICK E. SHEERAN, JUDGE
Citation2022 Ohio 317
PartiesPORTSMOUTH DAILY TIMES Requester v. THE VILLAGE OF NEW BOSTON Respondent
Docket Number2021-00414PQ
Decision Date11 January 2022

2022-Ohio-317

PORTSMOUTH DAILY TIMES Requester
v.

THE VILLAGE OF NEW BOSTON Respondent

No. 2021-00414PQ

Court of Claims of Ohio

January 11, 2022


JUDGMENT ENTRY

PATRICK E. SHEERAN, JUDGE

{¶1} On December 23, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(1). The Special Master states in the Report and Recommendation that "as the court's lack of jurisdiction over the current request is conclusively established by The [Portsmouth Daily] Time's reliance on federal FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] as its sole authority for making the request, it is unnecessary to further analyze the Village's assertion that [a certain report] is exempted in its entirety as privileged attorney-client communication and/or attorney work product, and the special master thus submits no recommendation thereon." (R&R, 4.) The Special Master recommends (1) granting a motion to dismiss filed by Respondent and (2) assessing costs to Requester. (R&R, 4.)

{¶2} Neither party has timely filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special master's report and recommendation, then 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} The Court determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation as to the issue of a lack of jurisdiction. Under Ohio law, the term "jurisdiction" "means 'the courts' statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.' (Emphasis omitted.)" Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d

1

81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11, quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 87, 290 N.E.2d 841 (1972), paragraph one of the syllabus. The term "jurisdiction" "encompasses jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person." Pratts at ¶ 11, citing State v. Parker, 95 Ohio St.3d 524, 2002-Ohio-2833, 769 N.E.2d 846, ¶ 22 (Cook, J., dissenting).

{¶4} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that subject-matter jurisdiction "defines the competency of a court to render a valid judgment in a particular action." Morrison, supra, at 87. As to the issue of personal jurisdiction, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT