[Cite as Smith v. Degen,
2012-Ohio-3749.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
DAVID SMITH,
RELATOR-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 1-12-04
v.
WILLIAM DEGEN, TRUSTEE, ET AL., OPINION
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CV2011 0329
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 20, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Brian J. Vennekotter for Appellant
Michael A. Rumer and Alissa M. Sterling for Appellees
Case No. 1-12-04
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Relator-appellant, David Smith, appeals the Allen County Court of
Common Pleas’ grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents-appellees,
William Degen, Trustee, et al. We affirm.
{¶2} This case stems from Smith’s requests for public records from the
Bath Township Board of Trustees (hereinafter “the board”). On May 6, 2011,
Smith, pro se, filed a complaint for writ of mandamus against current and former
trustees, the Bath Township Zoning Inspector, the Bath Township Financial
Officer, the Bath Township Clerk, an Allen County Sherriff’s Deputy, and the
board’s attorney, Michael A. Rumer. (Doc. No. 1).
{¶3} On June 27, 2011, several of the respondents filed a joint motion to
dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing that they were not responsible for the
public records; and therefore, not properly named as parties to the action. (Doc.
No. 24).
{¶4} On July 8, 2011, Smith filed a motion for an extension of time to
respond to the motion to dismiss and obtained counsel. (Doc. Nos. 26, 28). On
July 12 and 27, 2011, the trial court granted extensions of time for Smith to
respond to the motion. (Doc. Nos. 27, 29-30).
{¶5} On August 10, 2011, Smith filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, to which the parties had previously stipulated. (Doc. No. 31). The trial
-2-
Case No. 1-12-04
court granted Smith leave that same day. (Doc. No. 32). The complaint was also
filed that same day naming Bath Township and Ruth Hollenbacher, the fiscal
officer, as defendants-respondents. (Doc. No. 33). The trial court dismissed all
other parties named in the original complaint pursuant to the parties’ stipulations.
(Doc. No. 32).
{¶6} On November 14, 2011, respondents filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. No. 38). On December 12, 2011, Smith filed a response. (Doc.
No. 40).
{¶7} On January 17, 2012, the trial court granted respondents’ motion for
summary judgment, finding that mandamus was inappropriate since respondents
had already provided Smith with all the records in their possession or provided
Smith with access to the same. (Doc. No. 47). The trial court also found that
Smith was not charged in excess for the copies of the public records since he was
given an account credit. (Id.).
{¶8} On January 27, 2012, Smith filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 48).
Smith now appeals raising one assignment of error.
Assignment of Error
The trial court committed reversible error by granting summary
judgment in favor of Bath when there is a genuine issue of
material fact whether the public records were provided and at
the proper cost.
-3-
Case No. 1-12-04
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Smith argues that the trial court erred
in granting respondents summary judgment since there remained a genuine issue
of fact; to wit: whether respondents actually provided Smith with the public
records at issue and at the proper cost. We will discuss Smith’s records requests
by date followed by his argument respecting the duplication costs.
{¶10} We review a decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Doe v.
Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390 (2000). Summary judgment is proper where there
is no genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law, and reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion when viewing
the evidence in favor of the non-moving party, and the conclusion is adverse to the
non-moving party. Civ.R. 56(C); State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist.
Bd. of Edn.,
69 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1994).
{¶11} Ohio’s Public Records Act provides, in relevant part, that “all public
records responsive to the request shall be promptly prepared and made available
for inspection to any person at all reasonable times during regular business hours.
… upon request, a public office or person responsible for public records shall
make copies of the requested public record available at cost and within a
reasonable period of time. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) (emphasis added). If the public
office or person responsible for the public records fails to comply with R.C.
149.43(B)(1), an aggrieved party may file a mandamus action compelling the
-4-
Case No. 1-12-04
public office or person responsible for the public records to comply with the
statute. R.C. 149.43(C)(1); State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig, 132 Ohio
St.3d 68,
2012-Ohio-1999, ¶ 11.
{¶12} Generally, mandamus is only appropriate when the relator
demonstrates a clear legal right to the relief sought; a clear legal duty of the
respondent to perform the requested action; and, the lack of an adequate remedy at
law. Trans Rail Am., Inc. v. Enyeart, 123 Ohio St.3d 1,
2009-Ohio-3624, ¶ 45.
However, “[r]elators in public-records mandamus cases need not establish the lack
of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” State ex rel. Am. Civ.
Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs.,
128 Ohio St.3d
256,
2011-Ohio-625, ¶ 24.
April 24, 2009
{¶13} On April 24, 2009, Smith hand delivered a document to Bath
Township Clerk, Janet Mauk, requesting over 14 items, including “all comments
made at meetings concerning Me and my property … from 1986 to present” and
“all correspondence sent to me concerning this property.” (Doc. No. 33, Ex. A);
(Doc. No. 38, Ex. 1). Smith also requested details concerning funding for a Bath
Township clean-up; statistics concerning the number of valid complaints filed
against property owners; the number of complaints Hollenbacher filed with and
-5-
Case No. 1-12-04
without merit; and various other inquiries related to the trustees’ pay and benefits
and various zoning questions. (Id.); (Id.).
{¶14} On May 7, 2009, the board responded to Smith’s public records
request by letter, indicating that his request was overly broad and unclear. (Doc.
No. 33, Ex. B); (Doc. No. 38, Ex. 2). The board advised Smith that it was willing
to provide him copies of any public record if he particularly described the record.
(Id.); (Id.).
{¶15} Smith argues that a genuine issue of material fact remains because
respondents failed to provide the documents he requested on April 24, 2009 and
did not provide him an opportunity to revise his request. We disagree. Many of
the items Smith requested would have required the respondents to compile
information from existing records, and the respondents have no duty to do so.
State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry, 85 Ohio St.3d 153, 154 (1999), citing State ex
rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd.,
82 Ohio St.3d 273, 274 (1998), and
State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.,
80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427 (1997).
Several of Smith’s requests also called for legal advice, which is not a “public
record” under R.C. 149.43(A). Aside from that, many of Smith’s requests, like his
request for “all comments made at meetings concerning Me and my property …
from 1986 to present,” were overly broad. State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman,
92 Ohio
St.3d 312, 314-315 (2001) (request for “any and all records generated …
-6-
Case No. 1-12-04
containing any reference whatsoever” to relator was overly broad). Smith did not
clarify and resubmit his public records request after the board informed him it did
not comply with the public records statute. The board had no duty to provide
Smith with any public records based upon his overly broad and non-compliant
request.
May 12, 2009
{¶16} On May 12, 2009, Smith requested a copy of the Bath Township
rules for special meetings and rescheduling meetings. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. E); (Doc.
No. 38, Ex. 3). The trustees responded by letter that same day informing Smith
that townships are governed by the Ohio Revised Code, and the board uses
Roberts Rules of Order for its meetings. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. G); (Doc. No. 38, Ex.
4).
{¶17} Smith argues that a genuine issue of fact remains since the
respondents failed to provide him a copy of the aforementioned rules he requested
on May 12, 2009. The respondents informed Smith that no such record exists, that
the board is governed by the Ohio Revised Code, and its meetings are governed by
Roberts Rules of Order. (Doc. No. 38, Ex. 4). On November 18, 2009, Smith was
again informed that no special rules exist, that regular meetings for the calendar
year are scheduled at the last meeting of the previous year or the first meeting of
the current year, and that special meetings are set as needed and recorded in the
-7-
Case No. 1-12-04
minutes of the regular meetings. (Id., Ex. 12). Smith acknowledges that the rule
was adopted at a regular board meeting, and he was provided a copy of the
meeting minutes from 1986 to June 2009. (Appellant’s Brief at 7); (Doc. No. 38,
Exs. 5-7). Therefore, Smith was provided copies of all the records evidencing the
regular and special meetings of the board of trustees and any rules related thereto.
“[P]roviding the requested records to the relator in a public-records mandamus
case renders the mandamus claim moot.” State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v.
Toledo–Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537,
2009-Ohio-1767, ¶ 14.
June 12 & 19, 2009
{¶18} On May 22, 2009, Smith hand delivered a public records request to
the board seeking eight items, including: (1) the board’s meeting minutes from
1986 to the present; (2) all correspondence from the township to him from 1986 to
the present; (3) the budgets or any document listing expenditures/allocations for
2006 through 2009; (4) all public nuisance complaints directed to the trustees; (5)
any communications from any landowner(s) concerning the alleged public
nuisances; (6) the job description or any document describing the job duties,
requirements, and responsibilities of trustees and the township fiscal officer; (7)
any employment contract or similar document for Roy and Ruth Hollenbacher;
and (8) all zoning resolutions adopted from 1986 to the present, which request was
refused. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. I). On June 2, 2009, Smith hand delivered this same
-8-
Case No. 1-12-04
request to Mauk, which she refused. (Id., Ex. J). On June 12, 2009, Smith hand
delivered the same request for the third time, which was accepted. (Id., Ex. K);
(Doc. No. 38, Ex. 5).
{¶19} On June 15, 2009, the board advised Smith that it would prepare a
cost estimate for privately reproducing items listed in request no. 1 above, which
would be provided upon his prepayment of the cost estimate; it would accumulate
and copy documents related to request nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 above to the extent such
documents are maintained as public records; with respect to request nos. 6 and 7
above, that the job description, authority, and powers of the trustees and fiscal
officers are found in R.C. Chapters 505 and 507; and, that he may obtain a copy of
the most recent township zoning resolution, along with any copies of zoning
amendments, at the township house during regular business hours. (Doc. No. 33,
Ex. L); (Doc. No. 38, Ex. 6).
{¶20} Smith argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning
whether the board provided him with the public records in request numbers 2, 4, 5,
6, 7, and 8 above. We disagree. With respect to request nos. 6 and 7, the board
informed Smith that the information he sought was in R.C. Chapters 505 and 507.
(Id.); (Id.). With respect to request no. 8, the board informed Smith that he could
obtain copies of the zoning resolution and any amendments thereto from the office
during normal business hours. This complies with Ohio’s Public Records Act.
-9-
Case No. 1-12-04
R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Concerning request nos. 4 and 5, the record indicates that no
such public records exist. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. U). The board has no duty to create
new documents to satisfy Smith’s request. State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington,
112 Ohio St.3d 33,
2006-Ohio-6365, ¶ 56, citing Norris v. Budgake,
89 Ohio St.3d
208, 209 (2000). Aside from that, Smith’s request for all public nuisance
complaints from 1986 to the present was overly broad. State ex rel. Zauderer v.
Joseph,
62 Ohio App.3d 752, 756 (10th Dist.1989) (request for “all traffic reports”
of the Ohio State Highway Patrol was “unreasonable in scope and … would
interfere with the sanctity of the recordkeeping process itself.”); State ex rel.
Dehler v. Spatny,
127 Ohio St.3d 312,
2010-Ohio-5711, ¶ 3 (request for the prison
quartermaster’s orders for and receipt of clothing and shoes over seven years was
overbroad because it sought what amounted to a complete duplication of the
quartermaster’s records).
{¶21} In request no. 2, Smith sought “[a]ll correspondence from Bath
Township, Bath Township Board of Trustees, or any agent for the aforementioned
to [him] from 1986 through the present.” (Doc. No. 33, Ex. I); (Doc. No. 38, Ex.
5). Smith’s subsequent request on June 19, 2009 clarified that he was seeking
“[a]ll emails sent or received by Bath Township, Bath Township Board of
Trustees, any other employees, associates, subcontractors or any agent for the
aforementioned concerning [him] and or [his] property at 1601 reservoir [sic] Rd
-10-
Case No. 1-12-04
Lima Ohio from 1986 through the present.” (Id., Ex. M) (emphasis added); (Id.,
Ex. 8) (emphasis added). However, Mauk averred that she examined the public
records maintained by Bath Township and no such emails existed, excepting those
sent to its attorney. (Doc. No. 38, Ex. 9). Emails from Smith to the board’s
attorney also indicate that the only emails concerning Smith are those sent to
counsel. (Id., Ex. 10).
{¶22} On appeal, Smith asserts that he was specifically seeking emails
concerning an injunction Bath Township sought and obtained against him, which
this Court affirmed in Campbell v. Smith, 3d Dist. No. 1-10-79, 2011-Ohio-3002.
Respondents argue that the emails are “trial preparation records,” specifically
excluded from the definition of “public records” under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(g).
Smith, on the other hand, argues that the emails are no longer protected by R.C.
149.43(A)(1)(g) since the litigation is now final. We need not decide whether or
not the emails in question are protected by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(g), however,
because Smith’s request was overly broad. See Joseph,
62 Ohio App.3d at 756;
Spatny,
2010-Ohio-5711, at ¶ 3. Furthermore, “‘it is the responsibility of the
person who wishes to inspect and/or copy records to identify with reasonable
clarity the records at issue.’” New Lexington,
2006-Ohio-6365, at ¶ 29, quoting
State ex rel. Fant v. Tober 8th Dist. No. 63737, *1 (Apr. 28, 1993), affirmed in
State ex rel. Fant v. Tober,
68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Since Smith’s request was
-11-
Case No. 1-12-04
overly broad and not reasonably clear, the board did not violate Ohio’s Public
Records Act by failing to meet Smith’s request.
{¶23} Consequently, with respect to Smith’s June 12 and 19, 2009 requests,
no material issue of fact remained since the board did not have a duty to provide
public records for Smith’s overly broad requests and provided Smith with all the
public records that actually existed.
November 17, 2009
{¶24} At the November 17, 2009 trustees’ meeting, Smith requested
“details” concerning “warrant # 26093,” a copy of all financial statements after the
June 16, 2009 statement ending with warrant # 26136 to the present date, and
scheduling and notice rules for special and rescheduled meetings. (Doc. No. 33,
Ex. R); (Doc. No. 38, Ex. 11). By letter dated November 18, 2009, the trustees
informed Smith that his first request is not a public records request since it asks for
information, not a record; that no financial statements exist; and, that no rules for
special meetings or rescheduled meetings exist but the same are decided at the
prior meeting and are reflected in the meeting minutes. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. S); (Doc.
No. 38, Ex. 12). On November 19, 2009, Smith sent an email advising the trustees
that, instead of his earlier requests, he now requested a copy of warrant # 26093,
copies of the Payment Register from June 16, 2009 forward, and a copy of the
-12-
Case No. 1-12-04
notice requirement for special meetings put in place December 30, 2008. (Doc.
No. 33, Ex. T).
{¶25} Smith argues that a question of material fact remains concerning
whether the board provided item number 3, a copy of the rules on public notice of
special meetings and rescheduled meetings. We disagree. Bath Township Fiscal
Officer Ruth Hollenbacher averred that no record exists for disclosure. (Doc. No.
38, Ex. 9). The board has no duty to create new documents to satisfy Smith’s
request. New Lexington, 2006-Ohio-6365, at ¶ 56, citing Norris,
89 Ohio St.3d at
209. Besides that, Smith has been provided a copy of the meeting minutes from
the December 30, 2008 regular board meeting, so respondents have provided the
relevant public record. Therefore, no material issue of fact remains concerning the
disclosure of this item.
February 15, 2011
{¶26} On February 15, 2011, Smith hand delivered a written request for the
date when Bath Township adopted language pertaining to R.C. 505.173
(concerning the storage of junk motor vehicles), a copy of the language as it
appears in the zoning ordinance, a copy of the meeting minutes when the language
was adopted, and a copy of the public notices sent out for the trustees’ meeting
where such language was adopted. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. AA); (Doc. No. 38, Ex. 13).
On February 18, 2011, trustee Bill Degen responded to the request via email
-13-
Case No. 1-12-04
indicating that he was uncertain which records Smith was requesting. (Doc. No.
38, Ex. 14). After Smith’s subsequent clarification, Degen notified Smith via
email that he had retrieved the meeting minutes he was requesting and to advise
him when he would be able to come retrieve them. (Id.)
{¶27} Smith argues that respondents failed to provide him the information
he requested, but instead, provided him with a copy of the zoning book and all
meeting minutes from June 2009 to present. The record indicates that Smith was
provided exactly what records he requested. In Smith’s March 7, 2011 email to
Trustee Degen, Smith stated, “I would be happy to review the meeting minutes
from June 2009 to date. Just have Jane get these together ….” (Doc. No. 38,
Ex. 14). Trustee Degen advised Smith the next day that he had the meeting
minutes Smith requested at the township building for his review. (Id.). Trustee
Degen also submitted an affidavit stating that he provided the aforementioned
records as Smith requested. (Id., Ex. 15). “[P]roviding the requested records to the
relator in a public-records mandamus case renders the mandamus claim moot.”
Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 2009-Ohio-1767, at ¶ 14.
Duplication Costs
{¶28} As a final matter, Smith argues that the trial court erred in granting
respondents summary judgment on his claim concerning his overpayment for
copies of the public records. We disagree.
-14-
Case No. 1-12-04
{¶29} R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires that copies of public records be provided
“at cost.” “This means actual cost and does not include labor costs regarding
employee time to respond to the request and make the copies.” State ex rel. Data
Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d
255,
2012-Ohio-753, ¶ 43, citing State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson,
70 Ohio St.3d 619, 625-626 (1994); State ex rel. Slagle v. Rogers,
103 Ohio St.3d
89,
2004-Ohio-4354, ¶ 6. “[A] public office, in its sound discretion, may adopt a
reasonable policy setting a fee for copies obtained from the public office, with the
fee reflecting the actual costs involved in making a copy, unless the cost is
otherwise set by statute.” Hutson,
70 Ohio St.3d at 625 (emphasis added), citing
1989 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 89-073 and State ex rel. Nelson v. Fuerst,
66 Ohio
St.3d 47, 48 (1993).
{¶30} According to Bath Township’s public records policy, “[t]he cost of
obtaining copies of Bath Township public records is: 1 (one) through 15 (fifteen)
copies, no charge; 16 (sixteen) copies or more, 10 (ten) cents per copy.” (Doc. No.
38, Ex. 16); (Doc. No. 38, Ex. 7). On July 2, 2009, the board advised Smith that
he would need to prepay the following duplication costs:
Meeting Minutes 1986 – present 3602 pages
Budget from 1986 – present 397 pages
-15-
Case No. 1-12-04
Total pages 3999 less 15 free pages equals 3984 pages. The charge
is $0.10 per page or $398.40. The charges are consistent with the
township policy, a copy of which is attached. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. O).
On July 7, 2009, Smith prepaid respondents the estimated duplication costs of
$398.40 by check number 5335. (Doc. No. 33, Ex. P); (Doc. No. 38, Exs. 6-7).
Since Smith’s request was quite voluminous, though, respondents sent the public
records to an independent contractor, Quick as a Wink, for duplication. (Doc. No.
38, Ex. 15). According to emails between Trustee Degen and Smith, Smith’s
initial records request, which respondents estimated would require 3,984 copies at
a cost of $398.40, only required 3,740 copies at ten cents per copy (per Bath
Township’s public records policy) for a total of $374.00. (Id., Ex. 17). Therefore,
Smith was then provided with a $24.40 ($398.40 - $374.00) credit on his printing
account with respondents. (Id., Exs. 7, 15).
{¶31} Respondents argue that Smith was properly charged according to its
public records policy and properly refunded the extra $24.40 he prepaid. Smith,
however, argues that the record contains evidence that respondents’ actual
duplication cost was only $317.23.
{¶32} Quick As A Wink Printing Co. Invoice # 13502, dated July 13, 2009
and charged to Bath Township Trustees, for “Copies ran on copier – 1986 to
2009—all sizes” totaling $317.23 is attached to Smith’s amended complaint. (Doc.
-16-
Case No. 1-12-04
No. 33, Ex. Q). This invoice appears to reflect the total duplication cost for the
public records Smith requested and for which he paid respondents $374.00, after
the refund. Invoices, however, are not among Civ.R. 56(C)’s exclusive list of
documentary evidence that may be considered in response to a summary judgment
motion. Christe v. GMS Mgt. Co., 124 Ohio App.3d 84, 90 (9th Dist.1997); Drawl
v. Cornicelli,
124 Ohio App.3d 562, 569 (11th Dist.1997). “Other documentary
evidence may be admitted; however, the appropriate method to introduce this
evidence is by way of an affidavit that complies with Civ.R. 56(E).” Drawl,
124
Ohio App.3d at 569, citing Martin v. Cent. Ohio Trans. Auth.,
70 Ohio App.3d 83,
89 (10th Dist.1990). Smith did not submit an affidavit authenticating and
incorporating the invoice. While a trial court may, in its sound discretion,
consider evidence not authorized under Civ.R. 56(C) where no objection is made,
it is not required to do so. Felker v. Schwenke,
129 Ohio App.3d 427, 431 (8th
Dist.1998); State ex rel. Spencer v. East Liverpool Planning Com’n,
80 Ohio St.3d
297, 301 (1997), citing Bowmer v. Dettelbach,
109 Ohio App.3d 680, 684 (6th
Dist.1996).
{¶33} Since Smith failed to present any evidence of the type listed in
Civ.R. 56(C) concerning his alleged overpayment of duplication costs, and the
respondents presented Trustee Degen’s averment that Smith was refunded for his
-17-
Case No. 1-12-04
overpayment of duplication costs, the trial court did not err in granting
respondents summary judgment on this issue.
{¶34} Smith’s assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶35} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI and ROGERS, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-18-
