Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court denied the Village of Richfield's request for a writ of mandamus seeking access to sealed criminal court records. The court held that access to court records was governed by Rules 44 through 47 of the Ohio Rules of Superintendence rather than the Public Records Act, and that Richfield also had an adequate remedy through appeal of the trial court's denial of its motion to unseal the records. The court emphasized that mandamus cannot control judicial discretion or serve as a substitute for appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, was the proper vehicle for obtaining sealed court records.
- Whether Richfield had an adequate remedy by appeal that precluded extraordinary relief in mandamus.
- Whether mandamus could be used to challenge the municipal court's discretionary decision to keep the records sealed.
Holdings
- Sup.R. 44 through 47 are the sole vehicle for obtaining court records in actions commenced after July 1, 2009; therefore, Richfield could not obtain the records by invoking R.C. 149.43.
- Richfield was not entitled to mandamus because it had an adequate remedy at law by appealing the municipal court's denial of its motion to unseal the records.
- Mandamus cannot be used to control a judge's discretion or as a substitute for an appeal, even when the alleged exercise of discretion is claimed to be erroneous or abusive.
Key quotations
“Sup.R. 44 through 47 deal specifically with the procedures regulating public access to court records and are the sole vehicle for obtaining such records in actions commenced after July 1, 2009.” (¶ 8)
“Moreover, Richfield cannot use mandamus to challenge Judge Michael’s discretion or as a substitute for appeal.” (¶ 11)
Factual background
Richfield sought access to sealed criminal records in the Akron Municipal Court, asserting that the records could be used in a civil action involving a law-enforcement officer and that the records had not been properly sealed. The municipal court conducted a closed hearing and an in camera inspection, then denied Richfield's motion to unseal the records, subject to limited exceptions. Rather than appeal that decision, Richfield requested the same records from the clerk under Ohio's Public Records Act and sought mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Procedural history
Richfield moved in the Akron Municipal Court to unseal criminal records, arguing that it was entitled to them under R.C. 2953.53(D) and that the records had not been properly sealed under R.C. 2953.52. After the municipal court denied the motion to unseal, Richfield requested the same records under the Public Records Act and then filed an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court denied mandamus because court records must be sought under Sup.R. 44 through 47 and because Richfield had an adequate remedy by appeal from the denial of its motion to unseal.