The opinion
[Cite as Cincinnati Enquirer v. Butler Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2025-Ohio-1650.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
THE CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, A Case No. 2024-00906PQ
DIVISION OF GP MEDIA, INC.
Special Master Todd Marti
Requester
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
v.
BUTLER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Respondent
{¶1} This case is before me for a R.C. 2743.75(F) report and recommendation. I
recommend that the court: (1) order respondent to produce the telephone log at issue, (2)
award requester its filing fee and costs, and (3) order that respondent pay the balance of
the costs of this case.
I. Background.
{¶2} The respondent Butler County Sheriff’s Office (“the Sheriff”) operates the
Butler County Jail. Butler County Sheriff’s Office, Corrections Section.1 Prisoners housed
there may make outgoing telephone calls. Butler County Sheriff’s Office, Communicating
by Telephone.2 Those calls are overseen by a third-party vendor. That vendor apparently
has the ability to generate a log of calls made by an inmate when requested. Requester
The Cincinnati Enquirer, A Division of Gannet Media, Inc.’s Submission of Additional
Evidence, filed March 19, 2025 (“Requester’s Evidence”), pp. 6-7 ¶ 7, 18, 19; Respondent
1 https://www.butlersheriff.org/corrections/. Accessed April 10, 2025. The court can take
judicial notice of the information on that government website. State v. Howard, 2010-Ohio-
2303, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.).
2 https://www.butlersheriff.org/general-info/inmate-info/telephone/. Accessed April 10,
2025. See note 1 regarding judicial notice of this fact.
Case No. 2024-00906PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Butler County Sheriff’s Office’s Response to Requester’s Complaint, filed March 28, 2025
(“Response”), p. 12, ¶¶ 7, 9.3
{¶3} Billy Wagner, a suspect in a high profile murder case, was housed in the Jail
for an extended period of time. A reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer, the requester here,
made a public records request to the Sheriff for certain records regarding Wagner’s stay
at the jail. The Sheriff provided all the requested records except a log of Wagner’s
telephone calls. Requester’s Evidence, pp.10, 12, 17-19.
{¶4} The Enquirer brought this case to compel production of the log. Mediation did
not resolve the case, so a schedule was set for the parties to file evidence and
memoranda supporting their positions. That schedule has run its course, making this case
ripe for decision. Order Terminating Mediation, entered March 5, 2025.
II. Analysis.
A. Respondent should be ordered to obtain and produce the log.
{¶5} The Sheriff asserts three bases for denying the request for the log. One is that
the log is not a record within the meaning of R.C. 149.011(G). Another is that the Sheriff
does not have the log because inmate phone calls are overseen by the third-party vendor
and the Sheriff has never requested a log. Finally, the Sheriff invokes R.C. 5120.21 to
assert that the log is exempted from the class of public records. None of those bases are
valid.
1. The log is a record because it documents compliance with a legal
obligation.
{¶6} Materials are records if they are “(1) documents, devices, or items. . . (2)
created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of the recorder’s office, (3) that
serve to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures,
operations, or other activities of the office. R.C. 149.011(G).” State ex rel. Data Trace
Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2012-Ohio-753, ¶ 31. The
Sheriff does not dispute the first two elements, but asserts that the logs would not
document its operations.
3 All references to specific pages of filings in this case are to the pages of the PDF copies
posted in the court’s docket.
Case No. 2024-00906PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶7} Materials that document a public office’s performance of its statutory
responsibilities are records. Ferrise v. Berea City School Dist., 2024-Ohio-5310, ¶¶ 9-14,
adopted 2024-Ohio-5968 (Ct. of Cl.). The logs are therefore records if they document the
Sheriff’s performance of its statutory obligations.
{¶8} They do. R.C. 341.01 requires the Sheriff to operate the Jail in compliance
with state jail standards. One of those standards requires the Sheriff to provide prisoners
with “access to inmate telephone services[.]” Adm. Code 5120:1-8-06(G). The log would
document whether Billy Wagner was in fact able to access telephone services while in
the Sheriff’s custody and hence the Sheriff’s performance of that statutory obligation. The
log is therefore a record.
2. The quasi-agency doctrine requires respondent to obtain and produce
the log.
{¶9} The quasi-agency doctrine requires a public office to retrieve records related
to the performance of a public function it has delegated to a private entity from that entity.
“When the quasi-agency test is satisfied, the public office has a duty to obtain requested
records from the private entity and disclose them to the requester.” State ex rel. Brown v.
Columbiana Cty. Jail, 2024-Ohio-4969, ¶ 21. For example, in Brown, a requester sought
records from a county sheriff related to the operations of the county jail that were held by
a private entity that managed the jail. The Court held that “[r]egardless of who has the . .
. records responsive to the request—the sheriff’s office or . . . the private jail
administrators—the sheriff’s office has a clear legal duty to obtain existing responsive
records and disclose them” if the quasi-agency doctrine applied. Id. at ¶ 22. The Sheriff
in this case is therefore obligated to obtain and produce the telephone log if the quasi-
agency doctrine applies here.
{¶10} It does. The doctrine applies if the requester “shows that the public office
delegated the public duty to which the requested records relate.” State ex rel. Armatas v.
Plain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2021-Ohio-1176, ¶ 18. “[P]roof of a delegated public duty
establishes that the documents relating to the delegated functions are public records.” Id.
As discussed in connection with the question of whether the log is a record, the Sheriff
has a duty to assure inmates access to telephone services. Adm. Code 5120:1-8-06(G),
R.C. 341.01. That is an inherently public duty because it arises in the operation of a jail
Case No. 2024-00906PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
and “it is difficult to imagine an activity in which [the public] has a stronger interest.” Prieser
v. Rodriques, 411 U.S. 475, 491-492 (1973). The Sheriff is therefore obligated to work
with the private entity that handles inmate telephone calls to obtain the log.
3. R.C. 5120.21 does not exempt the log from the class of public records.
{¶11} Sheriff’s reliance upon R.C. 5120.21 to shield the log from disclosure is
misplaced. That statute is limited by its own terms to records held by the Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction, and this court has held that it does not apply to county
jails. Shaffer v. Budish, 2018-Ohio-1539, ¶¶ 47-49, adopted February 22, 2018 (Ct. of Cl.
No. 2017-00690-PQ).
B. Requester is entitled to recover its filing fee and costs; respondent should
bear the balance of the costs.
{¶12} R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b) provides that the “aggrieved person shall be entitled
to recover from the public office *** the amount of the filing fee *** and any other costs
associated with the action[.]” The Enquirer was aggrieved by the Sheriff withholding the
log. I therefore recommend that the Enquirer recover its filing fee and the costs it incurred
in this case. I also recommend that the Sheriff bear the balance of the costs of this case.
III. Conclusion.
{¶13} In light of the foregoing, I recommend that the court:
A. Order respondent to produce the telephone log at issue within 30 days of the
entry of a judgment adopting this report and recommendation.
B. Order respondent to file and serve a certification that it has produced the log
within 40 days of the entry of a judgment adopting this report and
recommendation.
C. Award requester its filing fee and costs, and;
D. Order that respondent pay the balance of the costs of this case.
{¶14} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with
the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this
report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all
grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption
Case No. 2024-00906PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a
timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).
TODD MARTI
Special Master
Filed April 11, 2025
Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/8/25