Sengstock v. Twinsburg

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 314

Syllabus

After neither party timely filed written objections to a special master's report and recommendation, the Court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation. The Court adopted the report and recommendation, found that that Respondent had failed to produce public records in violation of R.C. 149.43((B)(1), ordered Respondent to forthwith disclose certain redacted employee names, as set forth in the report and recommendation, and determined that Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by Requester, but Requester was not entitled to recover attorney fees.