State ex rel. Jan Webb v. City of Highland Heights, Ohio ., Case, 98-LW-4968

• Decision Date: 08 October 1998
• Docket Number: 74333,98-LW-4968
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. JAN WEBB, ET AL., Relators v. CITY OF HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, OHIO, ET AL., Respondents CASE
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. JAN WEBB, ET AL. Relators v. CITY OF HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, OHIO, ET AL Respondents

No. 74333.

98-LW-4968 (8th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District Cuyahoga

October 8, 1998

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MOTION NO. 97003

For Relators: JAMES L. MAJOR, ESQ., Major & Associates, 408 West St. Clair Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44113.

For Respondents: TIMOTHY G. PALUF, ESQ., Leader Building, Suite 410, East Sixth St. & Superior Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1979.

OPINION

JAMES M. PORTER, P.J.

Relators, Jan Webb and John Webb, have filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in order to compel the disclosure of public records under R.C. 149.43. The relators seek to obtain from the respondents, the City of Highland Heights and the City of Highland Heights Police Department, copies of all complaints as made to respondent City of Highland Heights Police Department, by Edward Polster and Marilyn Polster against the relators. The respondents have filed a joint motion for summary judgment which this Court grants for the following reasons.

The relators, through their complaint for a writ of mandamus, allege that a request for the production of copies of the requested public records was forwarded to respondent City of Highland Heights Police Department on September 15, 1997. A review of Exhibit "A," as attached to the relators, complaint for a writ of mandamus, demonstrates that the request for the inspection and production of copies of public records was made by ordinary mail through a letter forwarded to an unnamed individual employed by respondent City of Highland Heights Police Department. The respondents, however, possess no legal duty to respond to a request for the production of public records as made by mail. State ex rel. Fenley v. Ohio Historical Society (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 509; State ex rel. Nelson v. Jones (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 438; State ex rel. Finnerty v. Custodian of Records, Strongsville Police Dept. (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 569; State ex rel. Larkins v. Kovacic (May 5, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64780, unreported. Thus, as a matter of law, the relators have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See State ex rel. Peeples (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 559; State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106.

In addition, a review of the affidavit as attached to the respondents' motion for summary judgment indicates that the requested records, to the extent that they exist, have been supplied to the relators. The relators, in...