State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cnty. Coroner's Office

• Decision Date: 14 December 2017
• Docket Number: 2016–1153,Nos. 2016–1115,s. 2016–1115
• Citation: 101 N.E.3d 396,153 Ohio St.3d 63,2017 Ohio 8988
• Parties: The State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike County Coroner's Office. The State ex rel. GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc., d.b.a. Columbus Dispatch, et al. v. Pike County Coroner's Office et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

153 Ohio St.3d 63

101 N.E.3d 396

2017 Ohio 8988

v.v.Nos. 2016–1115

2016–1153

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted July 11, 2017

Decided December 14, 2017

Graydon, Head & Ritchey, L.L.P., John C. Greiner, Cincinnati, and Darren W. Ford, for relator Cincinnati Enquirer.

Zeiger, Tigges & Little, L.L.P., John W. Zeiger, Marion H. Little Jr., and Matthew S. Zeiger, Columbus, for relators GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc., d.b.a. Columbus Dispatch, and Holly R. Zachariah.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Sarah E. Pierce and Ryan L. Richardson, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents, Pike County Coroner's Office and David Kessler, M.D.

Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, L.L.P., Michael H. Carpenter, and Caitlin E. Vetter, Columbus, urging denial of the writ for amicus curiaeOhio State Coroners Association.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael J. Friedmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging denial of the writ for amicus curiaeOhio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

O'Connor, C.J.{¶ 1} In these related original actions, relators, Cincinnati Enquirer ("the Enquirer") and GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc., d.b.a. Columbus Dispatch, and reporter Holly R. Zachariah(collectively, "the Dispatch"), filed complaints seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the release of unredacted reports on the autopsies of the eight members of the Rhoden and Gilley families who were murdered in Pike County in April 2016.Separately, the Enquirer moved for oral argument and the Dispatch moved to compel access to the unredacted autopsy reports filed under seal with this court.And the Dispatch and the Enquirer both seek an award of attorney fees and statutory damages for what they characterize as the untimely production of the redacted autopsy reports.We deny the writ, the motions, and the requests for attorney fees and statutory damages.

I.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} On April 22, 2016, eight people, all of whom were members of the Rhoden or Gilley families, were found dead in Pike County, Ohio.Over the next two days, the chief deputy coroner of Hamilton County conducted autopsies on the decedents.

RespondentPike County Coroner's Office("PCCO") received the final autopsy reports on July 22, 2016.

{¶ 3} The Dispatch made a verbal request to PCCO and respondentDavid Kessler, M.D., the Pike County coroner, to inspect the final autopsy reports, pursuant to R.C. 149.43 and 313.10.PCCO denied the request.

{¶ 4} On July 26, 2016, the Dispatch then e-mailed a public-records request for the final autopsy reports to PCCO and the attorney general, again citing R.C. 149.43 and 313.10.On the same day, Robert Strickley Jr., a reporter for the Enquirer, e-mailed a request for the final autopsy reports to PCCO, citing R.C. 149.43.

{¶ 5} Also that same day, Dr. Kessler issued a press release in which he confirmed that his office was in possession of all eight final autopsy reports but denied all media requests for them.Dr. Kessler stated that the final autopsy reports were exempt from disclosure as "confidential law enforcement investigatory records."

{¶ 6} On July 29, 2016, the Enquirer filed in this court an original action against PCCO seeking a writ of mandamus to compel release of the final autopsy reports.On August 8, 2016, the Dispatch filed a separate original action in this court seeking the same relief.Both suits were filed before Dr. Kessler and the attorney general's office released redacted copies of the eight final autopsy reports on September 23, 2016.The unredacted final autopsy reports have not been released.

{¶ 7} After unsuccessful mediation attempts, PCCO moved to dismiss both actions.On February 22, 2017, we unanimously denied the motions to dismiss and granted alternative writs of mandamus directing the parties to submit evidentiary materials and merit briefs.148 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2017-Ohio-573, 69 N.E.3d 747.

{¶ 8} Before the parties submitted their briefs, PCCO moved to submit unredacted copies of the autopsy reports and explanatory materials under seal for this court's in camera inspection.We granted the motion in part, permitting the unredacted autopsy reports to be filed under seal but without additional explanatory materials.148 Ohio St.3d 1440, 2017-Ohio-1427, 72 N.E.3d 655.PCCO filed the unredacted autopsy reports under seal on May 3, 2017.The next day, the Dispatch moved to compel access to the sealed autopsy reports.On April 11, 2017, the Enquirer filed an unopposed request for oral argument.

II.ANALYSIS

A.Request for oral argument

{¶ 9}We have discretion to determine whether an original action merits oral argument.S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A).In exercising that discretion, we consider whether the case involves a matter of great public importance, complex issues of law or fact, a substantial constitutional issue, or a conflict among the courts of appeals.State ex rel. BF Goodrich Co., Specialty Chems. Div. v. Indus. Comm. , 148 Ohio St.3d 212, 2016-Ohio-7988, 69 N.E.3d 728, ¶ 23.

{¶ 10}This case involves a matter of great public importance: whether autopsy reports in open homicide investigations are public records and therefore available for public inspection.However, the remaining factors are not present.The case presents no constitutional question or division among the intermediate appellate courts, the relevant facts are few and uncontested, and the legal questions in the case are all matters of statutory interpretation that the parties have extensively briefed.Accordingly, we deny the Enquirer's request for oral argument.

B.Motion to compel access

{¶ 11}We have consistently required in camera inspection of requested documents before determining whether they are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks , 145 Ohio St.3d 408, 2016-Ohio-1192, 49 N.E.3d 1296, ¶ 33.The Dispatch contends that it has a due-process right to participate in that inspection.But we considered and rejected the same argument in State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine , 135 Ohio St.3d 191, 2013-Ohio-199, 985 N.E.2d 467 :

If the court were to require the disclosure of the subject records in discovery to permit relator to contest the applicability of a claimed exception, it would render the case moot.And [relator] can still contest the applicability of a claimed exception by challenging the validity of unsealed evidence that the public-records custodian submits to support its reliance on the exception.* * * Thus, due process does not prevent the court's consideration of the pertinent records submitted under seal for in camera review.

(Citation omitted.)Id.at ¶ 23.The Dispatch has not offered any basis to distinguish its asserted due-process right from that considered in Lanham.Thus, we deny the motion to compel access.

C.The public-records mandamus petitions

1.Overview

{¶ 12} After conducting an autopsy, the coroner, deputy coroner, or pathologist must file in the coroner's office a detailed written report describing the observations made during the autopsy and the conclusions drawn therefrom.

R.C. 313.13(A).Once filed, that report is expressly defined as a public record and therefore is available for public inspection.R.C. 313.10(A)(1) and (B).

{¶ 13} But R.C. 313.10(A)(1) is subject to multiple exceptions.One of those exceptions provides that "[r]ecords of a deceased individual that are confidential law enforcement investigatory records [‘CLEIR’] as defined in section 149.43 of the Revised Code" are not public records.R.C. 313.10(A)(2)(e).

{¶ 14} The Dispatch and the Enquirer argue that as a matter of statutory construction, final autopsy reports can never qualify as CLEIR.And even assuming that the CLEIR exception can apply to some autopsy reports, the newspapers deny that any information contained in the Rhoden and Gilley reports actually satisfies the exception.This latter claim requires us to review the specific information that PCCO redacted from the autopsy reports submitted under seal.

2.Standard of review

{¶ 15} Mandamus is the appropriate remedy by which to compel compliance with the Public Records Act.State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees , 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6.The Public Records Act"is construed liberally in favor of broad access, and any doubt is resolved in favor of disclosure of public records."State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty. , 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 376, 662 N.E.2d 334(1996).Exceptions to disclosure under the act are strictly construed against the record's custodian, who has the burden to establish the applicability of any claimed exception.State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones–Kelley , 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, ¶ 10.

3.Analysis

{¶ 16} Under the Public Records Act, "[c]onfidential law enforcement investigatory records" are exempt from disclosure.R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h).And although the coroner's-records statute, R.C. 313.10(A)(1), generally deems "the records of the coroner" public records, the statute contains an exception for "[r]ecords of a deceased individual that are confidential law enforcement investigatory records,"R.C. 313.10(A)(2)(e).The coroner's-records statute cross-references the Public Records Act and incorporates its definition of CLEIR.Id.

a. Records of a deceased individual

{¶ 17}We first determine whether autopsy reports qualify as "[r]ecords of a deceased individual" pursuant to R.C. 313.10(A)(2)(e).That phrase, according to the Enquirer, "refers to a decedent's records, created prior to death, that come into the possession of the coroner."Autopsy reports, the newspapers argue, are "records of the coroner" and are not protected from disclosure pursuant to R.C. 313.10(A)(2)(e).

{¶ 18} The Enquirer's definition is unpersuasive.Notably, the newspapers argue that documents must be prepared by law enforcement in order to qualify as CLEIR.But if that were correct, then such...