Rhodes v. City of New Philadelphia, No. 2010–0963.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: Syllabus of the Court
• Citation: 951 N.E.2d 782,129 Ohio St.3d 304
• Decision Date: 07 July 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2010–0963.
• Parties: RHODES, Appellee,v.CITY OF NEW PHILADELPHIA, Appellant, et al.

129 Ohio St.3d 304
951 N.E.2d 782
2011 -Ohio- 3279

RHODES, Appellee,
v.
CITY OF NEW PHILADELPHIA, Appellant, et al.

No. 2010–0963.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 20, 2011.Decided July 7, 2011.

[951 N.E.2d 783]

[Ohio St.3d 304] Syllabus of the Court

The destruction of a public record in violation of R.C. 149.351(A) gives rise to a forfeiture to any person who is “aggrieved” by the destruction.

Craig T. Conley and William E. Walker Jr., for appellee.

Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., John T. McLandrich, and Frank H. Scialdone, Cleveland, for appellant.Edwin Davila, urging affirmance as a pro se amicus curiae.Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews and Anthony E. Brown, North Canton, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., L.P.A., Stephen L. Byron, Rebecca K. Schaltenbrand, Cleveland, and Stephen J. Smith, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Municipal League.Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Solicitor General, and Laura Eddleman Heim, Deputy Solicitor, urging reversal for amicus curiae state of Ohio.

MCGEE BROWN, J.Introduction

{¶ 1} The issue in this appeal is the meaning of the term “aggrieved” as it is used in R.C. 149.351.¹ The question presented

[951 N.E.2d 784]

is whether a party automatically [Ohio St.3d 305] becomes aggrieved as a matter of law when his request for a public record is denied due to an improper disposition of the record. We hold that a party is not aggrieved by the destruction of a record when the party's objective in requesting the record is not to obtain the record but to seek a forfeiture for the wrongful destruction of the record. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Appellee, Timothy Rhodes, mailed a public-records request to the police department of appellant, city of New Philadelphia, in July 2007. Rhodes requested certain reel-to-reel tape recordings made by the police dispatch department through the use of a now-antiquated “Dictaphone–Dictatape Logger” system. Rhodes explained in his request that the reel-to-reel tapes recorded all the department's telephone calls and radio dispatches in 24–hour increments and that there should be one tape for every day of the year. He requested access to every one of those tapes created from 1975 through 1995. In his reply, the New Philadelphia chief of police explained that the department had disposed of the recordings.

{¶ 3} Rhodes made similar requests to the Tuscarawas County Sheriff's Office, the city of Uhrichsville, the village of Gates Mills, the city of Dover, the city of Wooster, the city of Solon, and the city of Medina. The reel-to-reel recording system had long since been replaced. None of the public entities contacted by Rhodes had retained any of the old tapes or recorders, except for the city of Medina, which had preserved only a few tapes. Rhodes went to Medina to see what the reel-to-reel tapes looked like, but he did not request copies, transcripts, or a means to listen to the tapes.

{¶ 4} Except for New Philadelphia, all the above public entities had created record-retention schedules through their local records commissions and had obtained approval from the Ohio Historical Society and Ohio auditor of state to [Ohio St.3d 306] erase their reel-to-reel tapes after 30 days. See R.C. 149.39 (creating city records commissions to provide rules for retention and disposal of records). Upon finding that the New Philadelphia Police Department had, in violation of R.C. 149.351(A), erased the recordings from its reel-to-reel tapes 30 days after each recording was made,² Rhodes filed a complaint for civil forfeiture under R.C. 149.351(B). Rhodes stated in his complaint that New Philadelphia had acted

[951 N.E.2d 785]

unlawfully when it destroyed the recordings without the requisite approval, that he was aggrieved by New Philadelphia's violations, and that he was entitled to a $1,000 forfeiture for each improperly destroyed 24–hour recording.

{¶ 5} After both parties filed motions for summary judgment, the trial court determined that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to the number of violations allegedly committed by New Philadelphia and as to whether Rhodes was actually aggrieved by the violations. The matter proceeded to trial before a jury.

{¶ 6} Rhodes testified that he had requested the tapes because he had planned to listen to them to see how the police department handled dispatch calls. On cross-examination, Rhodes admitted that in one of his letters to the city of Dover, he stated that he would like to request certain public records only if the city did not have an approved record-disposition schedule. In another one of his letters, Rhodes explained, “[A]s these records are very important to the timeline of the Dover Police Department's use of audio tapes in my research of your records disposal, I must request a right to view them.”

{¶ 7} New Philadelphia argued that Rhodes was not an aggrieved party, because he did not actually want the records. Rhodes argued that his reason for requesting the records was immaterial because public entities are required by law to provide public records to any person who requests them. The trial court incorporated both parties' proposed definitions of “aggrieved person” into its instructions to the jury:

{¶ 8} “Black's Law Dictionary defines ‘aggrieved’ as ‘(Of a person or entity) having legal rights that are adversely affected; having been harmed by an infringement of legal rights.’

{¶ 9} “Under R.C. § 149.351, ‘a person is “aggrieved” where the improper disposition of a record infringes upon a person's legal right to scrutinize and evaluate a governmental decision.’

[Ohio St.3d 307] {¶ 10} “A person's right to access public records is a substantive right. A person does not have to establish a proper purpose or any purpose for seeking public records.” (Footnotes omitted.)

{¶ 11} The jury entered a unanimous verdict in favor of New Philadelphia, finding that Rhodes had not been aggrieved by the unauthorized disposition of the requested public records.

{¶ 12} The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter for a new trial to determine the number of violations committed by New Philadelphia. The appellate court held that the trial court should have granted the portion of Rhodes's motion for summary judgment claiming that he was an aggrieved party and should not have allowed the issue to go to trial. The appellate court held that aggrievement was not a factual issue to be determined by a jury, because “an aggrieved party is any member of the public who makes a lawful public records request and is denied those records.” Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 5th Dist. No. 2009AP020013, 2010-Ohio-1730, 2010 WL 1553571, ¶ 32.

{¶ 13} We accepted discretionary jurisdiction over the appeal by New Philadelphia. Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 126 Ohio St.3d 1581, 2010-Ohio-4542,...