[Cite as Schaffer v. Sheets,
2025-Ohio-1007.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
ALEX SCHAFFER Case Nos. 2024-00808PQ,
2024-00828PQ, 2024-00839PQ,
Requester 2024-00840PQ, 2024-00841PQ,
2024-00844PQ, 2024-00845PQ,
v. 2024-00846PQ, 2024-00847PQ,
2024-00848PQ, 2024-00849PQ,
SCOTT O. SHEETS 2024-00850PQ, 2024-00851PQ,
2024-00852PQ, 2024-00853PQ,
Respondent 2024-00854PQ, 2024-00855PQ,
2024-00856PQ, 2024-00857PQ,
AND 2024-00858PQ, 2024-00881PQ,
2024-00883PQ, 2024-00889PQ
ALEX SCHAFFER
Special Master Todd Marti
Requester
RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
v.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Respondent
{¶1} These cases present a difficult question: how to address wasteful litigation
resulting from the running conflict between an abusive public records requester and a
public office that has regularly failed to meet its obligations under the Public Records Act.
I recommend that the court respond by dismissing these cases without prejudice so that
they can be pursued in a court that has the authority to resolve that conflict.
I. Background.
{¶2} Requester Alex Schaffer has sworn that he is “the President and Founder of
Empire Sports & Entertainment, Inc[.]” Based on that, this court has found that “Alex
Schaffer operates a business that . . . uses information about Respondent Ohio State
University’s (“OSU”) Athletic Department. He makes frequent public records requests to
OSU for that information.” PQ Miscellaneous Requester Alex Schaffer’s Notice of
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -2- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
Document Submission, filed April 11, 2024, in Case No. 2024-00226PQ, at p. 4, ¶ 4;1
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024-Ohio-2185, ¶ 6, adopted
2024-Ohio-2625 (Ct. of Cl.)
(Schaffer I).
{¶3} As discussed more fully below, Schaffer and his company made more than
1,000 public records requests of OSU during 2024. PQ Miscellaneous, filed February 14,
2025, in Case No. 2024-00839PQ (“OSU Aff.”), pp. 18-243, 269-1808.2 During that time
he brought more than 40 cases against OSU or its counsel. Those cases are listed in
Table 1 at the end of this recommendation. As also discussed below, Schaffer’s requests
and cases are not only numerous, they are often demeaning.
{¶4} Schaffer’s cases are not totally without merit. Although many of his claims
failed, he has proven that OSU regularly fails to produce records within a reasonable time
in violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Schaffer I, 2024-Ohio-2185, ¶¶ 29-37, 70-71; Schaffer
v. Ohio State Univ.,
2024-Ohio-5299, ¶¶ 13-17, adopted Oct. 16, 2024 (Ct. of Cl.)
(Schaffer II). Further, OSU’s evidence in the consolidated cases suggests that pattern
continues.
{¶5} Schaffer continues to inundate OSU with public records requests. As of
February 6, 2025, he had submitted more than 70 multi-part public records requests in
2025. OSU Aff. pp. 8-17, 1809-1916. Absent some change, the mutually reinforcing cycle
of Schaffer’s abusive requests, OSU’s sluggish responses, and more cases in this court
will likely continue.
{¶6} In an effort to address that problem, I invoked R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(c) to require
the parties to submit evidence and memoranda on whether case law from Ohio and other
jurisdictions provides any guidance. Order, entered February 4, 2025. The parties have
made those submissions. I have carefully considered them and the affidavit attached to
Schaffer’s March 5, 2025, Combined Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Affidavit,
1 The reference is to the page of the PDF copy posted on the court’s docket.
2 Functionally identical copies of the OSU Aff. were filed in all these consolidated cases
except 2024-00808PQ. All references to that submission are to the copy filed in Case No.
2024-00839PQ. All references to specific pages of the OSU Aff. are based on the internal
pagination of that filing.
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -3- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
Motion to Strike, and Motion for Sanctions in making the recommendations discussed
below.
II. Analysis.
A. The Court should dismiss these cases pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2).
{¶7} R.C. 2743.75 is intended to provide “an expeditious and economical
procedure . . . to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records[.]” It
achieves that result in two ways. One is by providing a streamlined process that leads to
limited relief for successful claimants. R.C. 2743.75(D), (E), (F), and (G)(1). Another is
R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), which gives the court discretion to dismiss cases that would thwart
R.C. 2743.75’s purpose of quickly and efficiently resolving public records disputes. See
generally, Meros v. Office of Ohio AG Dave Yost, 2023-Ohio-1861, ¶¶ 6-8, 11-12 (Ct. of
Cl.).
{¶8} The discretion granted by R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) is broad. It allows dismissal
“[n]otwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this section.” (Emphasis added). That
allows dismissal of a case that otherwise falls within the scope of R.C. 2743.75 because
“a ‘notwithstanding’ clause clearly signals the drafter’s intention that the provisions of the
‘notwithstanding’ section override conflicting provisions[.]” Ohio Neighborhood Fin., Inc.
v. Scott, 2014-Ohio-2440, ¶ 35. Further, and of relevance here, the General Assembly
placed no substantive or procedural limitations on the court’s authority to dismiss a case
pursuant to this subsection, entrusting such dismissals to the court’s sound discretion.
{¶9} I recommend that the court exercise that discretion to dismiss these cases in
order to (1) keep from becoming a party to Schaffer’s abuse of the public records laws,
and to (2) allow the conflict underlying these cases to be addressed by a court with full
authority to do so.
1. The court should dismiss these cases to keep from becoming a party to
abuse of the public records laws.
{¶10} Ohio is not the only jurisdiction that provides a system for resolving public
records disputes that starts with a recommendation from a public records specialist and
ends with a judicial decision. Connecticut law and the federal Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”) provide for specialized review followed by a controlling judicial decision. Conn.
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -4- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
Gen Stat. Ann. 1-206(b) and (d); 4-183; 1 Hitchcock, Guidebook to the Freedom of
Information and Privacy Acts, §§ 4:13, 16:1 (2023 Ed.).
{¶11} As discussed below, courts in those jurisdictions dismiss cases brought by
requesters who have abused public records laws. While not controlling here, there are
several reasons why those precedents are very persuasive. Most obviously, they deal
with the same challenge presented here: how to deal with abuse of public records laws.
Moreover, they consider some of the factors Ohio courts consider in responding to abuse
in non-public record cases. Further, the structural similarities between those systems and
R.C. 2743.75 makes them relevant; all three systems involve an initial decision by public
records specialist, subject to review by a judge. Finally, Ohio courts have put considerable
weight on decisions from those jurisdictions in other public records contexts, and there
are no obvious reasons why this court should not follow that pattern. See e.g. State ex
rel. McCleary v. Roberts, 88 Ohio St.3d 365, 368 (2000); State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc.
v. Montgomery,
2006-Ohio-4854, ¶¶ 20, 21, 22.
{¶12} Federal and Connecticut precedents have identified factors for determining
whether a record claimant’s behavior is so abusive as to warrant dismissal of his public
records case. Several of those factors are present and strongly support dismissing these
cases.
a. The number of requests/cases.
{¶13} The federal courts have considered the number of record requests a plaintiff
has made. Rosiere v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189938, * 7 (D. Col. June 13,
2016) (Rosiere I); Rosiere v. United States,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190110, * 8 (D. Col.
July 21, 2016) (Rosiere II); Rosiere v. United States,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169177, *11
(D. N.J Oct. 12, 2017) (Rosiere III). They and the Connecticut courts also consider the
number of enforcement actions the requester has filed. Robert v. DOJ,
2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 33793, … 35-36 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2005); Rosiere I,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189938,
… 6-7; Rosiere II,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190110, * 8; Rosiere III,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
169177, … 2, 10; Smith v. Freedom of Information Comm.,
2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS
1999, * 3 (July 19, 2016); Lowthert v. Freedom of Information Comm.,
2021 Conn. Super.
LEXIS 1453, … 2-3 (Sep. 1, 2021). That latter group of cases is consistent with Ohio
precedent outside the public records context. Kondrat v. Byron,
63 Ohio App.3d 495, 496
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -5- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
(11th Dist.1989); State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs.,
100 Ohio App.3d
592, 593-594 (8th Dist.1995); Weltchek v. Weltchek,
1981 Ohio App. LEXIS 11877, *4
(6th Dist. July 31, 1981); Karmasu v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility,
63 Ohio Misc.2d 377, 378 (Ct.
of Cl.1993).
{¶14} Requests. OSU reports that Schaffer and his company made more than
1,000 records requests to OSU during 2024 and more than 70 requests so far in 2025.
OSU Aff. at pp. 8-243. Those numbers, as large as they are, significantly understate the
volume of Schaffer’s requests. Most are multi-part requests, seeking multiple categories
of records or data points, many seeking as many as 16 separate types of records/data
points. See e.g. Id. at pp. 707-708, 734-735, 742-743.3 Consequently, the actual number
of his requests is exponentially higher than the numbers OSU reported. Those numbers
dwarf those prompting dismissal of FOIA cases. Rosiere II, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
190110, * 8 (a combined total of 78 requests).
{¶15} That is not changed by Schaffer’s assertion that he did not make the
requests sent from the [email protected] and [email protected] email
accounts. He supports that assertion by averring he does not have access to any Empire
account other than [email protected], and that he does not use the
[email protected] and [email protected] accounts to make record
requests. Affidavit of Alex Schaffer, filed February 24, 2025 in Case No. 2024-00839PQ,
at pp. 2, 3, 4, ¶¶ 13-16, 27, 29.4 Those averments are demonstrably false.
{¶16} Schaffer’s claim that he has no access to any Empire account other than
[email protected] is contradicted by evidence that he previously filed in
this court. He submitted affidavit testimony from Empire’s system administrator that
“Schaffer, through his position of President of Empire, has both personal and work access
3 It is worth noting that the specific requests listed in the text represent only a handful of
such requests. Schaffer made functionally identical requests almost every day from June
21, 2024 through November 26, 2024. OSU Aff. at pp. 734, 1694.
4 Functionally identical copies of that affidavit were filed in all these consolidated cases.
The reference to that submission is to the copy filed in Case No. 2024-00839PQ. The
reference to specific pages of the that affidavit is based on the internal pagination of that
filing.
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -6- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
to the network system of Empire.” PQ Miscellaneous, filed August 13, 2024, in Case No.
2024-00342PQ, 354 page PDF file, p. 319, ¶ 8.5
{¶17} Schaffer’s claim that he has not used the [email protected] or
[email protected] accounts to make records requests is also contradicted by his
filings in this court and the language of the requests. He previously filed a case—in his
own name—to enforce records requests made from [email protected].
Amended Complaint, filed July 29, 2024, in Case No. 2024-00461PQ, at pp. 85, 86, 89,
90, 93, 94, 97, 98; PQ Miscellaneous, filed October 4, 2024, at pp. 5, ¶¶ 23, 24; 99, 100,
103, 104, 126, 127, 130, 131,141, 142, 144, 145, 160, 161, 164, 165, 208, 209, 212, 213.6
In fact, he explicitly swore that one of the requests at issue in that case was sent from
[email protected] and faulted OSU for sending correspondence about that
request to [email protected]. Id. at p. 5, ¶¶ 23, 24. Further, many of the
requests from the [email protected] and [email protected] accounts
refer to disabilities that are personal to Schaffer and that could not, by definition, be
suffered by an artificial entity like Empire. That shows that those accounts were used on
Schaffer’s behalf. Compare OSU Aff. at pp. 1156-1158 with e.g. 508-514 and e.g. 1525-
1534.
{¶18} Those contradictions fatally undermine Schaffer’s specific assertion on this
point and diminish his overall credibility.
{¶19} Cases. Schaffer filed more than 40 public records cases against OSU or its
counsel in 2024. See Table 1. That is more than the number of cases other courts have
considered to evince abuse. Robert, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33793, … 35-36 (24 cases)
(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2005); Rosiere I,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189938, * 7 (8 cases); Rosiere
II,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190110, * 8 (8 cases); Smith,
2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1999,
* 3 (32 over two years); Lowtherth,
2021 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1453, … 2-3 (44 cases over
5 The reference is to the page of the PDF copy posted on the court’s docket.
6 The references to specific pages of those filings are to the pages of the PDF Copies
posted on the court’s docket.
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -7- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
several years). See also Karmasu v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility,
63 Ohio Misc.2d 377, 378 (Ct.
of Cl.1993) (39 cases over four years).
b. Rapidity of requests/cases.
{¶20} The courts have held that making multiple records requests and filing
multiple enforcement actions in rapid succession evidence abuse. Rosiere I, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 189938 **4-5; Godbout v. Freedom of Information Comm.,
2016 Conn. Super.
LEXIS 2161 * 18 (Aug. 9, 2016) (Godbout II). Schaffer has done both.
{¶21} Requests. OSU produced undisputed evidence that Schaffer submitted an
average of 10 requests a day every day in June of 2024 and an average of eight requests
a day every day in July of 2024. OSU Aff. at pp. 42-115. That approaches the frequency
another court has found to evince abuse when they were made on a single day. Godbout
II, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2161 * 18 (11 requests in a single day). Schaffer’s
unremitting torrent of requests dwarfs that when one considers that his daily deluges
continued for two months.
{¶22} Cases. Schaffer has also engaged in concentrated bursts of filing cases. As
seen in Table 1, he has filed as many as four, five, seven, and eighteen cases on single
days. That too dwarfs frequency found to be abusive. Rosiere I, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
189938 * 5.
c. Duplicative requests/cases.
{¶23} Federal precedent holds that duplicative records requests are indicative of
abuse. Rosiere I, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189938, … 3-4 (15 “nearly identical requests”).
The federal and Connecticut cases also recognize that duplicative enforcement actions
are evidence of abuse. Id. at … 4-5; Goldgar v. Office of Administration,
26 F.3d 32, 35
(5th Cir.1994); Smith,
2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1999, … 12-13; Godbout I,
2016 Conn.
Super. LEXIS 2161, *5 (“The commission surely is not powerless to stem this torrent of
litigation, particularly over the same issue”).
{¶24} Duplicative requests. OSU provided evidence that Schaffer submitted more
than 200 requests for records that had already been provided. OSU Aff. at pp. 1 ¶ 3(b),
60-62, 64-73, 75-84, 86-95, 97-101. Schaffer has not disputed that. OSU has also shown
that Schaffer has made scores of other requests that are identical in all respects except
for the dates inquired of:
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -8- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
- Requests for multiple records regarding Athletic Director Bjork’s daily activities.
See e.g. Id. at pp. 734-735, 742-743. Those requests were made almost every
day from June 21, 2024, through November 26, 2024. Id. at pp. 734, 1694.
- Requests for records documenting when Director Bjork entered/exited OSU
buildings and parking facilities and information about flights Director Bjork took.
See e.g. Id. at pp. 1698, 1701, 1707. Those requests were made almost every
day from November 27, 2024, through February 5, 2025. Id. at pp. 1698, 1914.
- Requests for multiple records regarding Associate Athletic Director
Scarbough’s daily activities. See e.g. Id. at pp. 730, 732. Those requests were
made almost every day from June 19, 2024, through November 26, 2024. Id.
at pp. 730, 1696.
- Requests for records documenting when Associate Director Scarbough
entered/exited OSU buildings and parking facilities. See e.g. Id. at pp. 1700,
1703, 1706. Those requests were made almost every day from November 26,
2024, through February 4, 2025. Id. at pp. 1700, 1913.
This court has noted that pattern in other of Schaffer’s cases. Schaffer I, 2024-Ohio-2185,
¶ 15; Schaffer II,
2024-Ohio-5299, ¶¶ 2, 5.
{¶25} Duplicative cases. A “suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available
relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Rosiere I, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
189938, * 4 (quoting Curtis v. Citibank, N.A.,
226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000)). That
describes some of Schaffer’s cases. Schaffer II was so duplicative that it was barred by
res judicata. Schaffer II,
2024-Ohio-5299, ¶¶ 7-12. The 18 cases previously consolidated
as the Group Four Consolidated Cases all involved the same claims, parties, and relief.
Order, entered January 2, 2025, in Case Nos. 2024-00853PQ through 2024-00858PQ.
d. Personal attacks.
{¶26} The cases also hold that abuse is evidenced by the requester making
personal attacks on the responding officials or others involved in the public records
process. Smith, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1999, *12; Godbout I,
2016 Conn. Super.
LEXIS 2161, … 5-6, 19-20; Godbout v. Freedom of Information Comm.,
2019 Conn.
Super. LEXIS 2555, **18-19 (Sep. 23, 2019); Rosiere II,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190110,
… 9-10.
{¶27} Schaffer has repeatedly engaged in such attacks. He has made
unsubstantiated allegations that OSU has made “falsified” submissions to this court. He
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -9- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
has repeatedly referred to OSU employees as “disgraced,” “incapable of performing [their]
duties,” not earning their salaries, “incompetent,” and suggested that they personally pay
any awards made by this court. And emblematic of his attitude, he derisively commanded
them to “go fetch my records servants.” PQ Miscellaneous, 257 p. PDF document, filed
October 4, 2024 in Case No 2024-00461PQ, p. 6 ¶ 30; Complaint, filed July 2, 2024, in
Case No. 2024-00548PQ, p. 2; Amended Complaint, filed July 23, 2024 in Case No.
2024-00548PQ, p. 2; Complaint, filed July 23, 2024, in Case No. 2024-00550PQ, p. 2;
Amended Complaint, filed July 23, 2024 in Case No. 2024-00550PQ, p. 2; Complaint,
filed November 21, 2024, in Case No. 2024-00815PQ, p. 4; Complaint, filed
November 27, 2024, in Case No. 2024-00828PQ, pp. 3, 9, 13. This too supports the
conclusion that Schaffer is abusing the public records laws.
…
{¶28} Other than his self-refuted claim that he did not make some of the requests
considered here, Schaffer has not disputed any of the facts discussed above. Although
Schaffer’s February 24 affidavit, his February 28 memorandum, and the affidavit attached
to his March 5 motion dispute other facts OSU asserted, he has not challenged any of the
facts analyzed above, other than his use of the [email protected] and
[email protected] email accounts. Together, those facts establish a level of
abuse that far exceeds levels that prompted other courts to dismiss public records
cases. I therefore recommend that this court do the same.
{¶29} That recommendation is not at odds with the well settled—and wellfounded—principle that no “pleading of too much expense, or too much time involved, or
too much interference with normal duties, can be used by the respondent to evade the
public’s right to inspect and obtain a copy of public records within a reasonable time.”
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. Andrews, 48 Ohio St.2d 283, 289 (1976); State
ex rel. Fox v. Cuyahoga County Hospital System,
39 Ohio St.3d 108, 111 (1988); State
ex rel. Warren Newspapers v. Hutson,
70 Ohio St.3d 619, 623 (1994). That principle was
announced and restated in cases involving offices’ responses to one-off requests; they
did not involve anything approaching the rolling barrage of requests documented here.
Those cases are therefore distinguishable.
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -10- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
{¶30} Nor is this recommendation at odds with the Supreme Court’s instruction that
“courts must be very careful before imposing sanctions in a public-records case.” State
ex rel. Bardwell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2010-Ohio-5073, ¶ 11. Legally, I am
not recommending sanctions under a generally applicable sanctions provision, but am
recommending dismissal based on a statute tailored to public records cases.
Procedurally, I have been careful in making this recommendation, giving the parties notice
of the potential applicability of the principles underlying it, providing them with the
opportunity to present evidence and arguments about those principles, and thoroughly
analyzing their submissions. Substantively, the scale of Schaffer’s abuse far exceeds that
found sufficient to support sanctions in Bardwell.
2. Dismissal is also warranted because the court lacks authority to grant
the relief the parties seek.
{¶31} This court has held that a R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) dismissal is appropriate if
limitations on its authority prevent it from resolving the parties’ claims. Meros v. Office of
Ohio AG Dave Yost, 2023-Ohio-1861, ¶¶ 12, 13 (Ct. of Cl.); Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab.
& Corr.,
2022-Ohio-1619, ¶ 6 (Ct. of Cl.). That is consistent with the principle that a
mandamus action will be dismissed for refiling elsewhere if the mandamus court lacks
authority to issue all the relief sought. State ex rel. Walker v. City of Bowling Green,
69
Ohio St.3d 391, 392 (1994); State ex rel. Satow v. Gausse-Milliken,
2003-Ohio-2074, ¶¶
15-17. That principle is relevant here because R.C. 2743.75 cases are controlled by
mandamus standards. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-Ohio-
5371, ¶ 32; Viola v. Ohio AG’s Office,
2021-Ohio-3828, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.).
{¶32} The parties’ submissions in the individual consolidated cases and responses
to the February 4 order show that they each seek relief in addition to the resolution of the
specific disputes underlying the individual consolidated cases. Schaffer seeks to end what
he views as OSU’s systemic failure to provide public records on a timely basis. Although
he has pled delay claims in relation to specific records requests, the recurring nature of
those claims and his arguments make it clear that he seeks relief addressing that general
pattern. OSU, on the other hand, seeks protection from Schaffer’s abusive behavior
through the types of measures imposed in State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of
Commrs., 100 Ohio App.3d 592 (8th Dist.1995); Kondrat v. Byron,
63 Ohio App.3d 495
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -11- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
(11th Dist.1989); Weltchek, v. Weltchek,
1981 Ohio App. LEXIS 11877 (6th Dist. July 31,
1981).
{¶33} This court lacks authority to grant either type of relief. Nothing in R.C.
2743.75 authorizes it to grant relief beyond ordering the production of specific records in
response to specific requests; the statute does not authorize the broader relief Schaffer
seeks. Further, this court cannot grant damages that might incent OSU to more promptly
fulfill record requests. Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024-Ohio-5891, ¶¶ 42-55 (10th Dist.).
Nor does the court have authority to grant OSU the relief it seeks, orders of the kind
issued in Richard, Kondrat, and Weltchek. Those orders were based on those
constitutional courts’ inherent authority and this statutory court lacks inherent authority.
State ex rel. DeWine v. Court of Claims of Ohio,
2011-Ohio-5283, ¶¶ 19-21; State ex rel.
Johnson v. Cty. Court of Perry Cty.,
25 Ohio St.3d 53, 54 (1986).
{¶34} Both Schaffer and OSU have colorable claims for relief this court cannot
grant. I therefore recommend that the court dismiss these cases without prejudice so the
parties can present their claims to a court with authority to grant that relief. See R.C.
149.43(C)(1)(b).
B. Pending motions.
{¶35} Schaffer’s March 5, Combined Motion for Leave to File to File a
Supplemental Affidavit, Motion to Strike, and Motion for Sanctions, should be granted in
part and denied in part:
- The motion should be GRANTED as to Schaffer’s request for leave to file a
supplemental affidavit. OSU raised additional factual issues after Schaffer filed
his February 24, 2025, affidavit and Schaffer should be given the opportunity
to respond. I have considered that supplemental affidavit in preparing this
recommendation.
- The motion should be DENIED AS MOOT to the extent that it seeks to strike
OSU’s additional evidence and arguments about Schaffer’s filings in other
courts, the manhours OSU has spent responding to his requests, and the
impact of his requests on OSU’s processing of third parties’ requests. None of
those matters were considered in preparing this recommendation.
- The motion should be DENIED on the merits to the extent that it seeks
sanctions against OSU. Schaffer identifies no legal bases for the sanctions he
seeks.
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -12- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
{¶36} All other motions in these consolidated cases will be moot if this
recommendation of dismissal is accepted. I therefore recommend that all those motions
be DENIED as moot.
C. Costs.
{¶37} The costs of the consolidated cases should be assessed against Schaffer
pursuant to R.C. 2743.09(F), and R.C. 2303.20 because he implicitly agreed to pay those
costs by filing these cases. Helfrich v. Hall, 2022-Ohio-1852, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.).
III. Conclusion.
{¶38} In light of the foregoing, I recommend that the court:
A. DISMISS these consolidated cases without prejudice pursuant to R.C.
2743.75(D)(2).
B. GRANT requester’s March 5, Combined Motion for Leave to File to File a
Supplemental Affidavit, Motion to Strike, and Motion for Sanctions as to his
request to file a supplemental affidavit and DENY that motion in all other
respects.
C. DENY all other pending motions in these consolidated cases as moot; and
D. Order requester to bear the costs of these consolidated cases.
TODD R. MARTI
Special Master
Filed March 11, 2025
Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/24/25
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -13- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
Table 1
Cases filed by Alex Schaffer in 2024
Case Number Date filed
2024-00226PQ 3/5/2024
2024-00248PQ 3/12/2024
2024-00292PQ 3/22/2024
2024-00293PQ 3/22/2024
2024-00342PQ 4/11/2024
2024-00387PQ 4/26/2024
2024-00408PQ 5/2/2024
2024-00424PQ 5/10/2024
2024-00444PQ 5/17/2024
2024-00460PQ 5/24/2024
2024-00461PQ 5/24/2024
2024-00462PQ 5/24/2024
2024-00480PQ 5/31/2025
2024-00548PQ 7/2/2024
2024-00549PQ 7/2/2024
2024-00550PQ 7/2/2024
2024-00808PQ 11/19/2024
2024-00814PQ 11/20/2024
2024-00815PQ 11/21/2024
2024-00828PQ 11/27/2024
2024-00839PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00840PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00841PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00844PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00845PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00846PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00847PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00848PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00849PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00850PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00851PQ 12/2/2024
Case No. 2024-00808PQ -14- RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL
2024-00852PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00853PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00854PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00855PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00856PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00857PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00858PQ 12/2/2024
2024-00876PQ 12/12/2024
2024-00881PQ 12/13/2024
2024-00883PQ 12/13/2024
2024-00889PQ 12/18/2024
