State ex rel. Recodat Co. v. Buchanan, 88-2183
| Decision Date | 25 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2183,88-2183 |
| Citation | 546 N.E.2d 203,46 Ohio St.3d 163 |
| Parties | , 17 Media L. Rep. 1112 The STATE, ex rel. RECODAT COMPANY, v. BUCHANAN, Auditor, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Delligatti, Hollenbaugh, Briscoe & Milless and H. Ritchey Hollenbaugh, Columbus, for relator.
Robert L. Becker, Pros. Atty., and Pauline E. O'Neill, for respondents.
R.C. 149.43(B) provides:
The parties do not dispute that the records requested are public records that must be made available to the public. The dispute is whether a particular form of the records must be made available.
Most of the records are kept in two forms: one is the traditional form kept in the office of the auditor and is available to be copied and supplied to the public; the other is contained on magnetic computer tapes in the possession of ATEK.
In State, ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Schweikert (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 170, 527 N.E.2d 1230, we held that compilations of information gathered from public records are also public records that must be disclosed to the public pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B). Thus, one could argue that putting the records on magnetic computer tapes, as in the instant case, is, in a sense, a compilation, and the tapes should be disclosed. However, the report in Schweikert was the only report in existence. The compilation became a separate identifiable record. In the instant case, most of the records on the magnetic tapes are not essentially different from the records that can be copied in the auditor's office during regular business hours, even though the tapes apparently contain additional information that is not available at the office. The tapes are not, however, a separate public record.
Under R.C. 149.43(B), the duty of providing public records lies with the public office maintaining the records: Accordingly, the form the records should take also lies with the public office.
A public office that chooses to use magnetic tape as a means of storage must also comply with R.C. 9.01, which authorizes public offices to use electronic and photographic methods of keeping records, including magnetic computer tape. R.C. 9.01 makes it clear that a member of the public does not have to deal with a third party to obtain public records. The statute states in part:
"All persons utilizing the methods [including magnetic tapes] described in this section for keeping records and information shall keep and make readily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio v. Ohio Dep't of Health
...software is a means of access to records, without itself meeting the definition of a "record." State ex rel. Recodat Co. v. Buchanan, 46 Ohio St.3d 163, 165, 546 N.E.2d 203 (1989). An office may keep records about a computer system, such as user guides and training materials, but the Surgen......
-
State ex rel. Fenley v. Ohio Historical Soc.
...also affords a measure of discretion, which this court has held to govern the method of compliance. State ex rel. Recodat Co. v. Buchanan (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 163, 165, 546 N.E.2d 203, 205; State ex rel. Margolius v. Cleveland (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 456, 461, 584 N.E.2d 665, 670 ("R.C. 149.......
-
The Markup v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Family Servs.
... ... State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr ... , 155 Ohio ... of a "record." State ex rel. Recodat Co. v ... Buchanan, 46 Ohio St.3d 163, 165, 546 N.E.2d ... ...
-
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings
...appellee did "not have to deal with a private third party in order to gain access to the records." State ex rel. Recodat Co. v. Buchanan (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 163, 164, 546 N.E.2d 203, 204. Furthermore, as the Enquirer notes, if we were to adopt appellants' view, a private entity performing......