Skip to main content

Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.

Citations

  • 2024 Ohio 2625

Syllabus

On objections and motions, the Court adopted the Special Master's Report and Recommendation, overruled Requester's Objections, denied Respondent's Motion To Strike contained within Respondent's Response, and denied Requester's Motion For Leave. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, with respect to procedural motions before the Special Master, the Court (1) denied Respondent's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions for dismissal, (2) granted in part, and denied in part, Requester's motions to strike, striking late filed evidence and denying the imposition of other sanctions, and (3) denied Respondent's motions to strike as moot. With respect to the Special Master's recommendations as to the merits of consolidated Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, and 2024-00292PQ, the Court found that (1) Requester was not aggrieved by Respondent responding to Requester's individual requests on a consolidated basis, and (2) Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) in those instances when it took more than five working days to produce the public records sought. The Court also denied all other relief sought in these cases. With respect to merits of Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00293PQ, the Court ordered Respondent to (1) produce all public records responsive to part 3 of Requester's public records request of January 17, 2024, (2) produce all additional public records responsive to part 4 of that request or to certify that no additional responsive records exist, (3) produce all public records responsive to part 6 of that request, as amended on February 12, 2024, and (4) redact all those records to protect third parties' statutory privacy rights. Additionally, the Court found that Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by unreasonably delaying production of certain records sought. The Court denied all other relief sought in Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00293PQ. The Court determined that Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any

Judges: Sadler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.