Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that discovery in a public-records mandamus action must comply with Civ.R. 26(A) and be limited to nonprivileged information relevant and proportional to the parties’ claims and defenses. The court explained that discovery should generally focus on the public office’s search for responsive records and on issues concerning whether requested records qualify as public records or exist. It vacated the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ discovery order, including the order compelling discovery and the deposition of the attorney general, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What is the permissible scope of discovery in a public-records mandamus action under Civ.R. 26(A) and Civ.R. 26(B)(1)?
- When a public office asserts that requested records do not exist, what discovery may be permitted concerning the search for responsive records?
- When the existence or producibility of requested records is disputed, what discovery is relevant and proportional to the parties' claims and defenses?
- Did the Tenth District abuse its discretion by compelling the challenged interrogatories and document requests?
- Did the Tenth District abuse its discretion by permitting the deposition of the attorney general, a high-ranking government official?
Holdings
- Discovery in a public-records mandamus action must conform to the purpose of discovery in Civ.R. 26(A) and be limited under Civ.R. 26(B)(1) to nonprivileged matters relevant to the parties' claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case.
- When requested records cannot be or have not been produced, discovery should generally be limited to the nature and adequacy of the public office's search for responsive records and to information relevant to the parties' claims and defenses.
- When requested records exist and the parties dispute whether they must be produced, discovery must be confined to the requester's claims and the public office's defenses concerning whether the records qualify as public records or fall within a statutory exception.
- A court may not order production in discovery of the records sought in the underlying public-records mandamus action; the reviewing court must determine producibility through the mandamus proceeding, including by in camera review when appropriate.
- The Tenth District abused its discretion by permitting the deposition of the attorney general without adequately establishing the necessity of the deposition and applying the factors governing depositions of high-ranking government officials.
Key quotations
“discovery in a public-records case must be restricted to conform with the purpose of discovery set forth in Civ.R. 26(A) and the scope of discovery set forth in Civ.R. 26(B)(1).” (¶ 24)
“when requested records cannot be or have not been produced, courts should limit discovery in a public-records mandamus action to the nature of the public office’s search for responsive records and to information relevant to the claims and defenses asserted by the parties.” (¶ 32)
“when the requested records exist and can be produced but the parties dispute whether the records should be produced, any discovery must be confined by the claims asserted by the requester and the defenses asserted by the public office relative to producing the records.” (¶ 33)
“We therefore hold that the court of appeals misapplied the law and abused its discretion in granting Armiak’s motion to compel.” (¶ 49)
Factual background
In March 2020, David Armiak submitted a public-records request to the Ohio attorney general seeking records concerning the Republican Attorneys General Association, the Rule of Law Defense Fund, and a RAGA winter meeting. The attorney general's office initially declined the request on the ground that the documents were not records of the office and later stated that it had no responsive emails, texts, drafts, memoranda, minutes, or correspondence. During the ensuing mandamus action, the office produced some materials for in camera review but objected to broad interrogatories, document requests, and depositions as irrelevant and disproportionate. The Tenth District compelled extensive discovery and permitted the deposition of Attorney General Yost.
Procedural history
The Center for Media and Democracy and David Armiak filed an original mandamus action in the Tenth District seeking records concerning Attorney General Yost's involvement with the Republican Attorneys General Association and the Rule of Law Defense Fund. After the attorney general produced some materials for in camera review and asserted that other requested records were nonexistent or not public records, the court-of-appeals magistrate granted discovery motions and allowed Yost's deposition. The Tenth District denied the attorney general's motion to set aside the discovery order. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a related motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, then vacated the discovery order and remanded for reconsideration.
Remand instructions
The Tenth District Court of Appeals must reconsider the parties' discovery motions, analyze each discovery request under the statutory definitions of public records and records, apply Civ.R. 26(B)(1)'s relevance and proportionality requirements, and reconsider the motion for a protective order concerning the attorney general's deposition under the Brunner factors.