State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. City of Lakewood, No. 98-2295.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam. |
| Citation | 86 Ohio St.3d 385,715 NE 2d 179 |
| Decision Date | 08 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-2295. |
| Parties | THE STATE EX REL. TAXPAYERS COALITION ET AL. v. CITY OF LAKEWOOD ET AL. |
86 Ohio St.3d 385
715 NE 2d 179
v.
CITY OF LAKEWOOD ET AL
No. 98-2295.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted July 28, 1999.
Decided September 8, 1999.
Calfee, Halter & Griswold L.L.P., Albert J. Lucas and Stanley J. Dobrowski; Kevin M. Spellacy, Lakewood Director of Law, for respondents.
Per Curiam.
Relators assert that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to provide the requested records. More specifically, relators claim that (1) they never received mailing lists, notes related to Finance Director Ittu's September 14, 1998 presentation, notes prepared by Executive Assistant Dunn, and Social Security numbers and deferred compensation contributions on water department employee W-2 forms; (2) they received redacted W-2 forms, 1998 financial statements, and Mayor Cain's and Ittu's September 14 presentations from respondents before they filed this action, but that these records had not been timely made available to relators; (3) they received records concerning attorney fees incurred by Lakewood related to Issues 45 and 46 from respondents after they filed this action and that they had not been timely made available to them; and (4) that they received news releases, informational packets, and cover letters from third parties after they filed this action.
I. Failure to Provide Requested Records
Relators' first contention that respondents failed to provide the requested mailing lists, notes, and unredacted W-2 forms is meritless. No additional mailing list or notes concerning Ittu's presentation existed, and respondents had
In addition, respondents properly redacted both Social Security numbers and deferred compensation contribution amounts from the requested W-2 forms for water department employees. See R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(p); State ex rel. WLWTTV5 v. Leis (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 357, 361, 673 N.E.2d 1365, 1369; Ohio Adm.Code 145:1-1-01(C)(6) ("All information regarding a[(n) Ohio public employee's] deferred compensation] account shall be confidential."); cf. State ex rel. Jones v. Myers (C.P.1991), 61 Ohio Misc.2d 617, 622, 581 N.E.2d 629, 631. Relators claim in their reply brief that they are merely asking for "names and addresses of the employees making employee deduction[s] for deferred compensation." But they never requested the names and addresses of employees making deferred compensation contributions, and the redacted information on the specific amounts contributed by the employees to deferred compensation plans is confidential under Ohio Adm.Code 145-1-1-01(C)(6).
B. Failure to Timely Provide Records Received Before Mandamus Action
Relators next contend that, even though respondents provided access to redacted W-2 forms, 1998 financial statements, and Cain's and Ittu's September 14 presentations before relators filed this mandamus action, they are entitled to a writ of mandamus because respondents did not timely provide these records. Relators' claims, nevertheless, are moot because their complaint was limited to requesting access to records they contended had not been made available, and such access was provided before they filed this action. See, generally, State ex rel. Nix v. Cleveland (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 379, 382, 700 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Relator v. Metroparks, 100761
...to create a public record. Norris v. Budgake, 89 Ohio St.3d 208, 729 N.E.2d 758 (2000); State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood, 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 715 N.E.2d 179 (1999); State exPage 19rel. White v. Goldsberry, 85 Ohio St.3d 153, 707 N.E.2d 496 (1999). The uncontroverted affidavits, ......
-
State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Ass'n Certified Grievance Comm., 27123
...Prosecutor's Office , 133 Ohio St.3d 139, 2012-Ohio-4246, 976 N.E.2d 877, ¶ 20, citing State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood , 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 390, 715 N.E.2d 179 (1999) and Strothers v. Norton , 131 Ohio St.3d 359, 2012-Ohio-1007, 965 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 14.{¶ 93} Additionally, with r......
-
State ex rel. Data Trace Info. Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Fiscal Officer, 2010–2029.
...inspect and/or copy records to identify with reasonable clarity the records at issue.’ ” State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood, 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 391, 715 N.E.2d 179 (1996), quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober, 8th Dist. No. 63737, 1993 WL 173743, *1 (May 20, 1993), affirmed, 68 Oh......
-
State ex rel. Triplett v. Ross, 2006-0742.
...for Clerk, Youngstown Mun. Court (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 258, 264, 725 N.E.2d 271; State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 391, 715 N.E.2d 179; and State ex rel. BSW Dev. Group v. Dayton (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 338, 344, 699 N.E.2d 1271 (holding that we need not......