Warchol v. Superintendent of Wash. Local Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 04 October 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-00698PQ
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 3947
• Parties: BRITTANY WARCHOL Requester v. SUPERINTENDENT OF WASHINGTON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-3947

BRITTANY WARCHOL Requester
v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF WASHINGTON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent

No. 2021-00698PQ

Court of Claims of Ohio

October 4, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 11/4/22

DECISION AND ENTRY

PATRICK E. SHEERAN, JUDGE

{¶1} Respondent Superintendent of Washington Local School District (Superintendent) objects to a Special Master's Report and Recommendation in this public-records case. For reasons set forth below, the Court sustains the Superintendent's first objection. The Court adopts, in part, the Report and Recommendation.

I. Background

{¶2} On December 6, 2021, Requester Brittany Warchol, a self-represented litigant, filed a Complaint against the Superintendent wherein she alleged a denial of access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). Warchol represented in materials accompanying the Complaint that she filed her public-records request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).^[1]

1

{¶3} The Court appointed a Special Master who referred the case to mediation. After mediation failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties, the case was returned to the Special Master's docket. The Superintendent thereafter moved to dismiss Warchol's Complaint.

{¶4} On August 31, 2022, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R). The Special Master acknowledged the Superintendent's motion to dismiss, stating that the Superintendent "move[d] to dismiss the complaint on

2

the grounds that, 1) Warchol's request was made under the federal Freedom of Information Act and is therefore unenforceable against a state public office, 2) Warchol's claims are moot to the extent records have been produced, and 3) the ambiguous and/or overly broad portions of a request do not create a duty for a public office to produce records." (R&R, 4.) The Special Master has recommended denying the motion to dismiss, stating in support: "Although her wording is not clear, Warchol then appeared to concede that the request must be made under the Public Records Act and the Superintendent appeared to accept that the request was now properly made under Ohio law." (R&R, 5.) The Special Master also has stated that "for concision and because the matter has been fully briefed, the Special Master recommends the court deny the motions to dismiss on these grounds and proceed on the merits." (R&R, 5.)

{¶5} The Special Master made several findings in the Report and Recommendation. The Special Master "[found] that mootness, ambiguity, and overbreadth are partially apparent on the face of the complaint, as noted [in the Report and Recommendation with respect to a request made on November 15, 2021]." (R&R, 5.) The Special Master further "[found] that Warchol has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that additional records exist responsive to the above requests in the hands of the Superintendent," but the Special Master has noted that "[t]his is not an affirmative finding that no such records exist or ever existed, only that Warchol has failed to meet her burden to prove their existence in at the time of this request by the requisite quantum of evidence." (R&R, 8.) And the Special Master has stated, "Based on the evidence submitted, the Special Master finds that Warchol's request amounts to an improper demand for the complete duplication of voluminous files." (R&R, 10.) The Special Master also "[found] that the request for three years of all communication records 'regarding' or 'in regards to' a list of broad topics is improperly ambiguous and fails to reasonably identify the records sought." (R&R, 11.) The Special Master further "[found] that [a] September 30, 2021 request and follow-up communications, other than as noted [infra], are ambiguous, overly broad, and fail to reasonably identify the records sought." (R&R, 13.)

{¶6} However, the Special Master found that an "embedded request for records of the amounts and use of funds from specific grant funding sources during a limited period

3

is sufficiently specific to 'reasonably identify what public records are being requested.' R.C. 149.43(B)(2). The Superintendent has not asserted any exemption for these records, and they must therefore be produced." (R&R, 13-14.) The Special Master concluded:

Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments, the Special Master recommends the court deny the motion to dismiss on the basis of requester's initial reliance on the federal Freedom of Information Act as authority for her requests. The Special Master further recommends the court order respondent to produce all records responsive to the request for specified records of ESSER, ARP ESSER, and GEER funding. The Special Master further recommends the court find that all sufficiently specific requests have been rendered moot and deny the claim for any further production of records. The Special Master recommends the court find that no other violation of R.C. 149.43(B) has been shown. It is recommended costs be assessed equally between the parties

(R&R, 14.)

{¶7} On September 12, 2022, the Superintendent filed written objections to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation. The Superintendent's counsel certifies that a copy of the objections was sent electronically to Warchol and sent "via certified mail."

{¶8} Warchol has not filed a timely response to the Superintendent's objections.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶9} The General Assembly created an alternative means to resolve public-records dispute through the enactment of R.C. 2743.75. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11. See R.C. 2743.75(A). Under R.C. 2743.75(F)(1), not later than seven business days after receiving a response of a public office or person responsible for public records, or a motion to dismiss a complaint, if applicable, a special master is required to "submit to the court of claims a report and recommendation based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint." However, for good cause shown, a special master "may extend the seven-day period for

4

the submission of the report and recommendation to the court of claims under this division by an additional seven business days." R.C. 2743.75(F)(1).

{¶10} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) governs the filing of objections to a special master's report and recommendation. Under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party "may object to the report and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk and sending a copy to the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. * * * If either party timely objects, the other party may file with the clerk a response within seven business days after receiving the objection and send a copy of the response to the objecting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The court, within seven business days after the response to the objection is filed, shall issue a final order that adopts, modifies, or rejects the report and recommendation."

{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), "[a]ny objection to the report and recommendation shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the objection." The Superintendent presents the following objections:

"1. The Recommendation fails to require Requester to bear the requisite burden of proof.

2. The Request was made under FOIA, not R.C. 149.43, and should therefore be dismissed.

3. Even if the request had been properly made under R.C. 149.43, the complaint would properly be dismissed as to all portions of the request which are moot, ambiguous, overly broad or seek non-existent records."

The Superintendent maintains in the objections that Warchol's Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.

{¶12} The Superintendent asserts in...