Diebert v. Village of N. Baltimore Adm.

Summary

The Ohio Court of Claims overruled the requesters’ objections to a special master’s recommendation and adopted the recommendation. The court granted the Village of North Baltimore’s motion to dismiss the public-records action under R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), dismissed the claim without prejudice, denied the motion to enforce mediation confidentiality as moot, and split court costs between the parties.

Holdings

1. When reviewing objections to a special master's report and recommendation, the Court of Claims may not consider new material that was not part of the proceedings below.
2. Dismissal under R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) was proper because the Dieberts failed to comply with the special master's order and submitted filings that were untimely and deficient.
3. The Dieberts were not entitled to another opportunity to amend their complaint or to proceed through a Civ.R. 60 motion because doing so would exceed the scope of the special statutory public-records process.
4. The special master properly cited Schaffer v. Sheets for the limited proposition that a public-records complaint in the Court of Claims must use the form prescribed by the clerk; the Dieberts' different number and intended use of records did not undermine that proposition.
5. Because the dismissal was not on the merits, it had to be without prejudice, and the court acted within its discretion by splitting court costs between the parties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Claims could consider USPS tracking information attached to the Dieberts' objections to establish that their filings were timely.
2. Whether the special master properly recommended dismissal after the Dieberts failed to comply with the order requiring a second amended complaint.
3. Whether the Dieberts were entitled to another opportunity to amend their complaint or to file a Civ.R. 60 motion.
4. Whether the special master properly relied on Schaffer v. Sheets for the requirement that a public-records complaint be filed on the prescribed form.
5. Whether dismissal should be without prejudice and whether court costs should be split between the parties.

Disposition

dismissed