State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court considered a public-records mandamus action seeking calendars, work records, communications, complaints, and related metadata from the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office. The court held that metadata must be specifically requested, that nonexistent records need not be created, and that work-related calendar entries are public records subject to disclosure. It also upheld redactions of narrative work records protected by attorney-client privilege and denied relief as to other requested records.

Holdings

1. A prior request is a prerequisite to a Public Records Act mandamus action, and a requester is not entitled to metadata that was not specifically requested before filing the mandamus action.
2. A public office has no duty under the Public Records Act to create records that do not exist, and a requester’s reasonable belief that records exist is insufficient to establish their existence by clear and convincing evidence.
3. Work-related entries in the calendars of public prosecutors are public records subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43, even if the calendars also contain personal entries.
4. Narrative portions of records describing legal services performed by government attorneys may be withheld under the attorney-client privilege.
5. Records in a prosecutor’s file concerning an ongoing criminal matter may remain exempt from disclosure as trial-preparation records, and dismissal without prejudice does not eliminate that exemption.
6. A relator waives a mandamus claim concerning categories of records that were not included in the complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McCaffrey could obtain metadata when his prior public-records requests sought copies of documents but did not specifically request metadata.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s office had a duty under the Public Records Act to produce records that respondents established did not exist or to detail the steps taken in searching for such records.
3. Whether records of complaints, claims, or grievances involving the prosecutor’s office were subject to disclosure.
4. Whether work-related entries in the personal calendars of public prosecutors constituted public records.
5. Whether narrative portions of records concerning hours worked and duties performed were protected by attorney-client privilege.
6. Whether records relating to the underlying criminal investigation were exempt as trial-preparation records.
7. Whether McCaffrey could obtain mandamus relief on categories of records not included in his complaint.

Disposition

other