Ohio Supreme Court rules on post-HB9 penalties case

Ohio Supreme Court expounds on statutory damages, attorneys fees and costs in post-HB 9 public records mandamus case. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a recent public records case against a police department, and the ruling has implications for all public entities. The case, State ex rel. Doe v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 44, concerned the availability of a sealed juvenile record. A citizen had made a public records request in late November 2007 for records to the Pierce Township Police Dept. concerning any and all reports on an aggravated arson committed by a juvenile at a residence in the previous year. However, in early November the juvenile court had sent a notice to the police department that the juveniles record had been sealed per R.C. 2151.356, ordering all records to be sent to the juvenile court and the juveniles name be redacted from any indexes or journals. The police department responded to the citizen that there were no records available. The Cincinnati Enquirer requested similar information in December 2007 and the police chief sent the redacted incident report. The court of appeals granted a writ of mandamus to the citizen, ordering the records be produced, and awarding $2,000 in attorneys fees, $1,000 in statutory damages and $500 in costs. The citizen appealed and the township police department cross-appealed. The court dismissed as moot the issue of the propriety of mandamus as the records had been provided by the public office, upholding the writ. The court found that although appellant requested over $16,000 in attorneys fees, the $2,000 award was proper, and that the ability of the court to use discretion in awarding the amount of attorneys fees remained the same after the enactment of the revisions to Ohios public records law in HB 9 (126th Gen Assy.) The court noted the minimal public benefit achieved by the mandamus case on this point justified the award of minimal attorney fees by the court of appeals (para 43). The court upheld the award of attorneys fees and the maximum amount of statutory damages. Finally, the court reversed on the issue of costs, holding that costs means actual court costs, and not litigation expenses. Therefore only the $125 filing fee could be considered costs, and the $500 award was improper.