State ex rel. Ideastream Pub. Media v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth.

• Decision Date: 17 August 2021
• Docket Number: 110346
• Parties: STATE EX REL., IDEASTREAM PUBLIC MEDIA, Relator, v. CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2021-Ohio-2843

STATE EX REL., IDEASTREAM PUBLIC MEDIA, Relator, v. CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.

No. 110346

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

August 17, 2021

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 547061 Order No. 547953

JUDGMENT WRIT DENIED

First Amendment Clinic, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Andrew Geronimo, and Gabrielle Wilson, Certified Legal Intern, for relator.

McDonald Hopkins Co., LLC, Tyler L. Mathews, Kevin M. Butler and Theresa M. Lanese, for respondent.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

{¶ 1} Relator, IdeaStream Public Media ("IdeaStream"), seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent, the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority ("CMHA"), a chartered public housing authority, to release any records responsive to its records request. CMHA has now attested that it has released all records responsive to IdeaStream's requests. Therefore, the action is moot. For the reasons that follow, we deny the requested writ as moot, but grant IdeaStream's request for statutory damages and costs.

Background

{¶ 2} According to the complaint, filed on March 7, 2021, IdeaStream submitted an inquiry to CMHA on November 13, 2020: "[T]here is a camera on the corner of the building where the [officer-involved shooting] occurred that seems to have been well-positioned to capture the entire thing. Was that camera on and working and capturing video [at the time of the shooting]?" CMHA responded seven days later informing IdeaStream that the incident was under investigation by Cleveland Police, but otherwise did not answer the question posed. On November 30, 2020, CMHA followed up with a statement, saying, "The fatal shooting involving a CMHA PD Officer on November 13, 2020, remains under investigation by the Cleveland Division of Police. The Network Video Recorder for cameras in the vicinity of the shooting is being held in evidence. All questions about the investigation, including those about cameras or video, should be directed to the Cleveland Division of Police." On December 3, 2020, CMHA also provided an additional response, stating,

At this time, the fatal shooting that took place on November 13, 2020 involving a CMHA Police Officer remains under investigation by the Cleveland Division of Police. They are in possession of the Network Video Recorder ("NVR") for cameras in the area of the shooting, which is itself evidence in the investigation. CMHA recognizes the need for transparency through this process, and we remain committed to fully cooperate with investigators to discover the facts of that evening. Any additional inquiries regarding the details of the ongoing investigation should be directed to the Cleveland Division of Police.

{¶ 3} On February 12, 2021, IdeaStream submitted a written request to CMHA (the "video request"). The request sought "[v]ideo footage from any CMHA-owned cameras that captured the incident, including any security cameras on the exterior of buildings surrounding the site of the shooting and any footage from police vehicle dashboard cameras at or near the scene at the time of the incident." This request was not properly received due to technical issues and was resent on February 15, 2021. CMHA acknowledged receipt of this request the same day. This is the same request IdeaStream sent to the city of Cleveland on February 16, 2021, which is the subject of a related mandamus action in State ex rel IdeaStream Pub. Media v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110345. The complaint alleges that IdeaStream received no response to this records request from CMHA prior to filing suit.

{¶ 4} The complaint further alleges that IdeaStream sent a different request for information to CMHA on November 20, 2020, seeking the identity of the CMHA officer involved in the shooting. In a December 1, 2020 response, CMHA declined to provide any information, claiming the identity of the officer was being withheld under the Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records Exemption ("CLEIR").

{¶ 5} On December 3, 2020, IdeaStream followed up on its second inquiry by submitting a written records request (the "personnel file request") to CMHA, seeking "the personnel file for CMHA officer James Griffiths, including work history prior to working at CMHA, any performance evaluations and disciplinary records available for this officer." IdeaStream alleged it received no response to this request.

{¶ 6} IdeaStream then initiated the present action. As a part of a court-ordered status update, on April 5, 2021, CMHA certified that it had produced to IdeaStream the personnel file of Officer Griffiths, with redactions for home address, social security number, and phone number. The same order required CMHA to submit under seal for in camera inspection any responsive records for which it was claiming an exception or made any redaction. CMHA provided the unredacted personnel file of Officer Griffiths and a single, roughly 20-minute surveillance camera video. In the course of this action, IdeaStream acknowledged that CMHA had satisfied its personnel file request. This left the video request as the remaining unfulfilled records request in this case.

{¶ 7} Mediation was initially set and then canceled at IdeaStream's request. After a motion to dismiss filed by CMHA was dismissed, mediation was later attempted at CMHAs request, but was ultimately unsuccessful. The briefing of the parties indicates that, during mediation, the video produced by CMHA for in camera inspection was shown to IdeaStream by CMHA. CMHA did not produce the video or let IdeaStream record it at that time.

{¶ 8} CMHA filed a motion for summary judgment on June 4, 2021. On June 28, 2021, IdeaStream filed a brief in opposition, and Cleveland 19 News (WOIO), News 5 Cleveland (WEWS), WKYC Channel 3, The Ohio Association of Broadcasters, the Ohio News Media Association, The Society of Professional Journalists, the National Association of Black Journalists, and the National Press Club Institute filed an amicus brief. On July 6, 2021, CMHA filed a reply brief.

{¶ 9} Finally, the next day, CMHA filed a notice stating that it had released the video in question, the only responsive record it had to IdeaStream's remaining records request.

Law and Analysis

{¶ 10} The public has a right, enshrined in Ohio's Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, to access public records maintained by public offices in this state. State ex rel Summers v. Fox, 163 Ohio St.3d 217, 2020-Ohio-5585, 169 N.E.3d 625, ¶ 26. Mandamus is one of the appropriate means for vindicating the public's right to access public records. R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To be successful,

the requester must demonstrate that the requester has a clear legal right to compel the public office or person responsible for public records to allow the requester to inspect or copy the public record and that the public office or person responsible for public records has a clear legal duty to do so. State ex rel Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392, 2015-Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 10. "[U]nlike in other mandamus cases, '[requesters] in public records cases need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.'" State ex rel Caster v. Columbus, 151 Ohio St.3d 425, 2016-Ohio-8394, 89 N.E.3d 598, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255, 2012-Ohio-753, 963 N.E.2d 1288, ¶ 25.

Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio- 5371, ¶ 24.

{¶ 11} The matter is before this court on summary judgment. Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when "an examination of all relevant materials filed in the action reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2374, ¶ 11, citing Civ.R. 56(C).

Mootness

{¶ 12} "'In general, providing the requested records to the relator in a public-records mandamus case renders the mandamus claim moot.'" State ex rel Striker v Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168, 2011-Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 22, quoting State ex rel Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537, 2009-Ohio-1767, 905 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 14. "A court considering a claim of mootness must first determine what records were requested, and then whether all responsive records were provided." Andes v. Ohio Attorney Gen. Office, Ct. of Cl. No. 2017- 00144-PQ, 2017-Ohio-4251, ¶ 8.

{¶ 13} Here, CMHA has certified to this court that the only record it has responsive to IdeaStream's video request is the video that it filed with the court for in camera inspection. It has further informed the court that this video was released to IdeaStream on July 7, 2021. IdeaStream's May 19, 2021 status report indicates that its personnel file request was satisfied when CMHA produced the redacted personnel file of Officer Griffiths. "Absent contrary evidence in the record," an averment that all responsive records have been produced is sufficient to demonstrate that a records request is moot. State ex rel Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 22, 2018-Ohio-5110, 123 N.E.3d 895, ¶ 18. Here, there is no such contrary evidence.

{¶ 14} IdeaStream has been afforded the relief to which it would be entitled if it were successful in this action. It has been provided the personnel file and video it seeks. The action is, therefore, moot. State ex rel Chapnick v. E Cleveland City School Dist Bd. of Edn., 93 Ohio St.3d 449, 451, 755 N.E.2d 883 (2001), citing State ex rel. Jones v. O'Connor, 84 Ohio St.3d 426, 704 N.E.2d 1223 (1999) ("Mandamus does not lie to compel an act that...