State ex rel. Motor Carrier Serv., Inc. v. Rankin

• Decision Date: 18 April 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 2012–1264,2012–1394.,s. 2012–1264
• Citation: 987 N.E.2d 670,135 Ohio St.3d 395
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. RANKIN, Registrar, et al., Appellees. The State ex rel. Motor Carrier Service, Inc. v. Rankin, Registrar, et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

135 Ohio St.3d 395

987 N.E.2d 670

The STATE ex rel. MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE, INC., Appellant,

v.RANKIN, Registrar, et al., Appellees.

The State ex rel. Motor Carrier Service, Inc.

v.Rankin, Registrar, et al.

Nos. 2012–1264, 2012–1394.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 10, 2013.

Decided April 18, 2013.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Lisa Pierce Reisz, Kenneth J. Rubin, and Thomas E. Szykowny, Columbus, for relator in case No. 2012–1394 and appellant in case No. 2012–1264.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William J. Cole and Hillary R. Damaser, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents in case No. 2012–1394 and appellees in case No. 2012–1264.

PER CURIAM.

[Ohio St.3d 395]{¶ 1} This consolidated case is a public-records matter dealing with the interplay of (1) Ohio's Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, (2) the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 2721 et seq. and its counterpart in Ohio, R.C. 4501.27 (collectively, “the DPPA”), and (3) a Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) rule, Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1–12–02(D)(2).

{¶ 2} Case No. 2012–1394 is an original action in which relator, Motor Carrier Service, Inc. (“MCS”), an Ohio trucking company, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, BMV Registrar Mike Rankin and Ohio Department of Public Safety Director Thomas P. Charles, to provide an unredacted, noncertified copy of the driving records of an MCS employee at cost. The case is consolidated with case No. 2012–1264, a direct appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, involving the same parties and the same issues, but a different driving record.

{¶ 3} In both cases, MCS requested unredacted copies of the driving records of its employees from the BMV at cost. The BMV refused to provide unredacted copies at cost—five cents per page—but instead, following the BMV rule, required MCS to specify the basis for its entitlement to an unredacted copy on form BMV1173 and to pay a $5 fee for a certified copy. MCS claims that it does [Ohio St.3d 396]not need a certified copy and that it should be able to receive an unredacted copy at cost under the Public Records Act.

{¶ 4} MCS is not entitled to a writ of mandamus, because disclosure of the records is prohibited by the DPPA unless a requester can demonstrate a permissible use, which it must do by complying with the procedure outlined in the rule, Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1–12–02(D)(2). The BMV properly promulgated the rule under its rule-making authority. The rule creates a procedure for requesting DPPA-governed materials, which includes filling out and submitting form BMV1173 and paying the $5 fee. The specific provisions of R.C. 4501.27 and Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1–12–02(D)(2) prevail over the general provisions of R.C. 149.43, including the provision requiring that public records should be provided “at cost.”

{¶ 5} For the following reasons, we affirm the Tenth District in case No. 2012–1264 and deny the writ in case No. 2012–1394.

Facts

{¶ 6} The BMV is a division of the Ohio Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) and is a public office within the meaning of the Public Records Act. State ex rel. Mancini v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 69 Ohio St.3d 486, 633 N.E.2d 1126 (1994).

{¶ 7} The DPPA prohibits the disclosure of personal information that the BMV has in connection with a driving record. R.C. 4501.27(A); 18 U.S.C. 2721(a). However, the DPPA permits disclosure for use by an employer or insurer to obtain or verify information about the holder of a commercial driver's license. R.C. 4501.27(B)(2)(j); 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(9). The federal DPPA does not establish a procedure for requesting protected material from the BMV, but Ohio's statute grants the BMV rule-making authority to carry out its duties. R.C. 4501.27(E). The BMV promulgated Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1–12–02 under this authority.

Case No. 2012–1264

{¶ 8} On August 31, 2010, MCS submitted a public-records request to the BMV seeking an unredacted copy of the driving record of one of its employees. In its request, MCS stated that the record was necessary to verify information about the employee's commercial driver's license as required by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. MCS did not submit a form BMV1173 with its request, nor did it pay any fee.

{¶ 9} The BMV provided MCS with a copy of the driving record, but with the employee's personal information redacted. In a subsequent letter, an attorney for DPS explained that the redaction is required by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) and the [Ohio St.3d 397]DPPA, unless the request is made by a statutorily exempted requestor for statutorily defined purposes.

{¶ 10} MCS filed a mandamus action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, claiming that it was entitled to an unredacted copy of the driver's record at cost. The respondents countered that disclosure was prohibited by the DPPA and that MCS had failed to demonstrate that any exception applied, because it filed a request under the general public-records provision, Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1–12–02(D)(1), rather than under Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1–12–02(D)(2), which allows the requester to obtain unredacted records after showing that it meets the statutory conditions and paying the $5 fee.

{¶ 11} The Tenth District magistrate recommended denial of the writ, finding that because MCS had applied under Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1–12–02(D)(1) rather than (D)(2), it was entitled only to a redacted copy. A majority of the panel agreed, finding that a requester is not authorized to obtain an unredacted copy unless the request conforms to section (D)(2) of the rule. State ex rel. Motor Carrier Serv., Inc. v. Williams [Rankin], 10th Dist. No. 10AP–1178, 2012-Ohio-2590, 2012 WL 2106223. The BMV “has promulgated a rule requiring a requester to provide specific information regarding the purpose of the intended use accompanied by a certification of truthfulness.” Id. at ¶ 17. MCS did not follow this procedure, but made a general public-records request. One member of the panel dissented in part on the merits, asserting that the BMV, while authorized to promulgate the rule requiring a special application for restricted information, went too far in its requirement that an eligible requester “choose either a public records request to receive a redacted copy or the completion of form BMV1173, request for a certified abstract, and payment of a $5 fee to get a full copy.” Id. at ¶ 30 (French, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Case No. 2012–1394

{¶ 12} On July 3, 2012, MCS submitted a request, including a completed BMV form, but again lacking the $5 fee, to BMV Registrar Rankin for a copy of the unredacted, noncertified driving record of an employee. MCS again specified that its request was to verify information relating to its employee's commercial driver's license that is required under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The DPS again provided only a redacted version of the requested driving record, citing the DPPA and Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1–12–02.

{¶ 13} On August 14, MCS filed case No. 2012–1394 as an original action in this court for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, BMV Registrar Mike Rankin and DPS Director Thomas P. Charles, to provide access at cost to an unredacted, noncertified copy of the employee driving record MCS requested in its July 3, 2012 request. On October 1, 2012, an alternative writ was granted. 133 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2012-Ohio-4477, 975 N.E.2d 1022. At the same time, [Ohio St.3d 398]case Nos. 2012–1394 and 2012–1264 were consolidated for consideration by the court. Id. at 1402, 975 N.E.2d 1022.

{¶ 14} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the merits.

Analysis

Request for oral argument

{¶ 15} The phrase “Request for Oral Argument” appears on the front page of MCS's Memorandum in Support of Writ in case No. 2012–1394, without explanation in the memorandum or in any pleading. As part of their response to the motion to consolidate, the BMV and DPS concur in that request, although again with no explanation as to why oral argument is needed here.

{¶ 16} In cases in which oral argument is not mandatory—such as original actions and direct appeals from cases originating in a court of appeals, see S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A)—we have discretion to grant oral argument, and “ ‘in exercising this 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 courts of appeals.’ ” State ex rel. Jean–Baptiste v. Kirsch, 134 Ohio St.3d 421, 2012-Ohio-5697, 983 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 111 Ohio St.3d 118, 2006-Ohio-5339, 855 N.E.2d 444, ¶ 15.

{¶ 17} No conflict in the lower courts has been identified, and the case involves an important, but narrow, issue of public-records law. The briefs are sufficient for us to resolve the appeal here. Jean–Baptiste at ¶ 13,citing State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453, 2011-Ohio-4082, 953 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 19. We therefore proceed to decide the merits of the case without oral argument.

Public Records Act analysis

{¶ 18} “Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio's 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;R.C. 149.43(C)(1). Although “[w]e construe the Public Records Act liberally in favor of broad access and resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure of public records,” State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff's Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224, 2010-Ohio-3288, 932 N.E.2d 327, ¶ 6, the relator must still establish entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, 958 N.E.2d 1235, paragraph three of the syllabus (“Relators in mandamus cases must prove their entitlement to the writ by...