Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliance & Integrity

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Court of Claims’ judgment in favor of Ohio State University, Office of Compliance and Integrity, in a public-records dispute. The court held that the remand concerned only FERPA-related redactions, that other issues were settled or barred by res judicata, and that post-judgment record-production disputes were outside the appellate record. The court also held that the statutory cost-recovery provision did not apply because an appeal had been taken.

Holdings

1. When an appellate court remands a case for a limited purpose, the trial court must accept all issues previously adjudicated as finally settled. The Court of Claims therefore acted within the scope of the remand by ruling only on FERPA-related redactions and entering judgment for OSU on that issue.
2. Claims unrelated to FERPA that were raised or could have been raised in the prior direct appeal are barred by res judicata and cannot be relitigated in the appeal from the limited-remand judgment.
3. The appellant failed to establish that a trial court must refrain from entering final judgment in a public-records matter until the responding public office has completed production of all records.
4. The cost-recovery provision in R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b) does not apply when an appeal is taken from the Court of Claims' final order.
5. The appellate court could not consider claims based on record productions occurring after the judgment entry because those materials were outside the record on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Claims exceeded the scope of the Tenth District's limited remand by entering judgment for OSU.
2. Whether Maleky's claims unrelated to FERPA redactions were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised in the prior direct appeal.
3. Whether the Court of Claims erred by entering final judgment before OSU completed production of responsive public records.
4. Whether the cost-recovery provision of R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b) applied when an appeal was taken from the Court of Claims' final order.
5. Whether the appellate court could consider alleged improper redactions based on record productions occurring after the judgment entry under review.

Disposition

affirmed