State ex rel. Fant v. Sykes

• Decision Date: 11 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-411,86-411
• Citation: 29 OBR 236,504 N.E.2d 1114,29 Ohio St.3d 18
• Parties: , 29 O.B.R. 236 The STATE, ex rel. FANT, Appellant, v. SYKES, Director of Administrative Services, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 18

29 Ohio St.3d 18

504 N.E.2d 1114, 29 O.B.R. 236

The STATE, ex rel. FANT, Appellant, v. SYKES, Director of Administrative Services, Appellee.

No. 86-411.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 11, 1987.

Appellant, Henry J. Fant, instituted this mandamus action below, to compel the Director of Administrative Services to furnish him with a " * * * a copy of whatever approved records management program applicable to the 'Executive Assistant for Constituent Affairs' in the office of the governor of Ohio." Subsequently, appellant was furnished with State of Ohio Records Retention Schedule (ADM-3500) by the Department of Administrative Services, which noted " * * * that there is nothing contained in the Governor's Office Records Retention Schedule that specifically corresponds to the position of 'Executive Assistant for Constituent Affairs' and there is nothing on file that contains that information."

Appellee, Director of Administrative Services, then filed a motion to dismiss, which was assigned to a referee who converted the motion into one for summary judgment. Appellee attached a copy of the foregoing retention schedule to his motion. Discovery proceeded by way of interrogatories, during which time appellant was furnished with other documents, previously overlooked, concerning records retention, disposal and administration in the Governor's office.

Appellant's contention before the referee was that the retention schedule submitted by appellee with his motion to dismiss was illegible. Appellee thereupon submitted another copy of this retention schedule. The referee in his report found this submission to be legible and a satisfaction of appellee's duty under R.C. 149.43(B), and recommended denial of the writ. The court of appeals adopted the findings of the referee and denied the writ.

The cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. ¹

Henry J. Fant, pro se.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thomas L. Rosenberg, Columbus, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant's contentions here essentially relate to procedural matters in connection with discovery before the referee and do not dispute his findings, as adopted by the court below. Appellee complied with his duty of making copies of public records available to appellant under R.C. 149.43(B). The procedural questions raised by appellant are moot inasmuch as he received the records sought by this mandamus action.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals,...