Chillicothe Gazette v. Chillicothe City Schools

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 5445

Syllabus

Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43 ambiguous overly broad Title IX FERPA R.C. 3319.321 personally identifiable information attorney-client privilege non-record quasi-agency non-existent moot. Overview: Requester sought a Title IX investigation report and other records related to a former employee of respondent city schools. Respondent denied some of the requests as ambiguous or overly broad, and asserted that some requested documents were not records of the city schools or did not exist. Respondent asserted that some records were exempted from the Public Records Act by common-law attorney-client privilege, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and R.C. 3319.321. The special master found that the requests were moot to the extent that records had been provided, and that certain requests were ambiguous or overly broad except to the extent that they contained a sufficiently specific embedded request. The special master further found that FERPA and R.C. 3319.321 had been overapplied in redacting the Title IX investigation report, and that material not falling squarely within the term \personally identifiable information\ must be disclosed. The special master further found that the city schools' insurer was not a person responsible for public records, under the theory of quasi-agency, for an insurer-appointed defense counsel's engagement and payment records. The special master found that respondent had no duty to provide non-existent records, or records that did not fall under the terms of any request.