The opinion
[Cite as Lyrenmann v. Milford Exempted Village Schools, 2025-Ohio-2885.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
MICHAEL LYRENMANN Case No. 2025-00570PQ
Requester Special Master Todd Marti
v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MILFORD EXEMPTED VILLAGE
SCHOOLS
Respondent
{¶1} This matter is before me for a R.C.2743.75(F) report and recommendation. I
recommend that the court (1) order respondent to produce unredacted copies of pp. 3-278
of the records filed for in camera review subject only to the redactions listed in the
appendix to this report and recommendation; (2) order respondent to take that action
within 30 days from the entry of a judgment adopting this report and recommendation; (3)
order respondent to file and serve an affirmation that it has taken that action within 40
days of the entry of a judgment adopting this report and recommendation, (4) order
respondent to reimburse requester for his filing fee and costs in this case; (5) order
respondent pay the balance of the costs of this case; and (6) deny all other relief.
I. Background.
{¶2} A high school student of the respondent Milford Exempted Village Schools
(“Milford”) committed suicide before she graduated. Milford struggled with how to
acknowledge her when her class graduated, but eventually settled on a policy. The
question generated significant controversy. Requester Michael Lyrenmann made two
requests for public records related to the controversy.
{¶3} On March 25, 2025, requested copies of correspondence between Milford, its
officials, and the mother of the deceased student. Milford produced one redacted record,
but withheld 275 pages of responsive records because it viewed the records as containing
information protected by 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Case No. 2025-00570PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Act (“FERPA”) and R.C. 3319.321. It withheld those records in their entirety because it
believed that the protected information was so intertwined with the records as a whole
that the records would be unintelligible after redaction. Notice of Filing Respondent’s
Evidence, filed July 9, 2025 (“Respondent’s Evidence”), pp. 3-4; Filing Under Seal of
Unredacted and Withheld Records, filed July 9, 2025 (“In Camera Records”), pp. 3-278,
Notice of Filing of Redacted Records, filed July 9, 2025 (“Redacted Records”), pp. 2-3.1
{¶4} On April 28, 2025, Mr. Lyrenmann requested copies of correspondence from
the community at large about how Milford would acknowledge the deceased student at
the commencement. Milford produced the correspondence, but redacted the email
addresses of the persons sending emails, arguing that the addresses were not public
records because they were not records within the meaning of R.C.149.011(G).
Respondent’s Evidence, pp. 5-8; Redacted Records, pp. 4-38.
{¶5} Mr. Lyrenmann filed this case to contest those responses. Mediation did not
resolve the case, and a schedule was set for Milford to file responsive records for in
camera review and for both parties to file evidence and memoranda supporting their
positions. That schedule has run its course, making this case ripe for decision. Complaint,
filed June 11, 2025; Order Terminating Mediation, entered June 25, 2025.
II. Analysis.
A. March 25, 2025, request.
{¶6} Milford was correct in determining that the records contained information
protected by FERPA and R.C. 3319.321, but incorrect in withholding those records in their
entirety.
{¶7} The withheld records contain information protected by FERPA and R.C.
3319.321(B). R.C.149.43(A)(1)(v) authorizes public offices to withhold information
covered by those statutes. State ex rel. ESPN, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 2012-Ohio-2690,
¶ 25 (FERPA); State ex rel. CNN, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Schools, 2020-Ohio-
5149, ¶ 17 (R.C. 3319.321). Both FERPA and R.C. 3319.321 prohibit the release of
1 The In Camera Records were filed in the form of two PDF files, consecutively Bates
stamped across the two files. All references to specific pages of the In Camera Records
are to the Bates numbers appearing on the pages referenced.
Case No. 2025-00570PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
“personally identifiable information” about a student. That term is defined for purposes of
FERPA by 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. It states that the “term includes, but is not limited to—
(a) The student’s name;
(b) The name of the student’s parent or other family members;
(c) The address of the student or student’s family;
(d) A personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student
number, or biometric record;
(e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and
mother’s maiden name;
(f) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific
student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does
not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student
with reasonable certainty; or
(g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution
reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education
record relates.”
That term is not defined in R.C. 3319.321, but the cases use the definition provided by 34
C.F.R. § 99.3. Patton v. Solon City School Dist., 2017-Ohio-9415, ¶ 13, adopted February
21, 2018 (Ct. of Cl. Case No. 2017-00570PQ); Chillicothe Gazette v. Chillicothe City
Schools, 2018-Ohio-5445, ¶ 15, adopted in relevant part, 2019-Ohio-965, ¶ 13 (Ct. of Cl.).
{¶8} In camera review of the withheld records revealed that they do indeed contain
information falling within elements (a), (b) and (f) of that definition. That is “obviously
apparent and manifest just from the content of the record itself[.]” Welsh-Huggins v.
Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 35. Milford was therefore correct
to object to the disclosure of that information.
{¶9} Milford was wrong in withholding all records that contained that information.
R.C. 149.43(B)(1) mandates that if “a public record contains information that is exempt
*** the public office *** shall make available all of the information within the public record
that is not exempt.” Records containing exempt material can be withheld in their entirety
only in very limited situations. Complete withholding is only permissible if the exempted
material is “necessarily” and “inextricably intertwined” with the rest of the record. State ex
rel. McGee v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, 49 Ohio St.3d 59, 60 (1990); State ex rel.
Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 2010-Ohio-3288, ¶¶ 11, 14. The scope of exempt
Case No. 2025-00570PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
material must be so pervasive that redaction would “thoroughly eviscerate” the record as
a whole. Narciso v. Powell Police Dept., 2018-Ohio-4590, ¶ 12, adopted 2018-Ohio-5017
(Ct. of Cl.). Complete withholding is not allowed if the exempt material is “discrete and
severable” from the balance of the record. Gannett GP Media, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Pub.
Safety, 2017-Ohio-4247, ¶ 49, adopted, 2017-Ohio-4248 (Ct. of Cl.). The public office has
the burden of proving such intertwining, Narciso, 2018-Ohio-4590, ¶ 68, and any doubts
are resolved against complete withholding. Rocker, 2010-Ohio-3288, ¶ 16. Finally, the
“extent of any redaction must be carefully restricted,” Narciso, 2018-Ohio-4590, ¶ 11.
{¶10} In camera review revealed that the protected information can be easily
separated from the balance of the records by redacting:
- The deceased student’s name.
- The name and email address of the deceased student’s mother.
- The body of the mother’s emails.
- The body of and attachments to all emails with the subject of “Vigil.”
- The January 28, 2025, email from Dr. Arnold to the mother of the deceased
student.
{¶11} Contrary to Milford’s argument, the records will have significant meaning
after those redactions. They would still illuminate the timeline of Milford’s response to the
underlying issue, the identity of the officials involved in developing the response, and the
various iterations of the policy that emerged during that process.
{¶12} I therefore recommend that Milford be ordered to produce copies of the
records filed as pp. 3-278 of the In Camera Records, subject only to the redactions just
discussed.
B. April 28, 2025, request.
{¶13} This request asked for “all records of emails or communications received by
the Superintendent and Board of Education members from 3rd parties with comments or
questions about the policy in question, the upcoming 2025 graduation ceremony, and the
recent drama initiated by” the deceased student’s mother. Milford produced more than 30
pages of records, redacted to obscure the email addresses of the senders of emails sent
Case No. 2025-00570PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
to Milford or its officials. Milford argues that those redactions were proper because the
email addresses were not records within the meaning of R.C. 149.011(G). Respondent’s
Evidence, pp. 5-8; Redacted Records, pp. 4-38.
{¶14} A public office may properly redact information within an otherwise public
record when that information does not fit within the definition of “record” provided by R.C.
149.011(G). A requester challenging such a redaction has the burden of proving that the
redacted information fits within that definition. That requires proof that the information
“serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures,
operations, or other activities of the office.” R.C. 149.011(G); Langer v. Ohio State Univ.
Office of Univ. Compliance & Integrity, 2023-Ohio-2323, ¶¶ 17-20, adopted July 6, 2023
(Ct. of Cl. Case No. 2023-00195PQ).
{¶15} Requester has not met that burden. The only evidence in the record of this
case is the emails themselves. By themselves, the emails’ addresses reveal nothing
about any of the things listed in the excerpt from R.C. 149.011(G) set out above. Further,
this court has noted that such contact information is not a record when the office does not
use it to contact the person the information identifies or to verify facts relevant to a matter
it is considering. Brown v. City of Cleveland, 2019-Ohio-1819, ¶ 12, adopted 2019-Ohio-
2627 (Ct. of Cl.). That is what we have here.
{¶16} That not changed by requester’s arguments.
{¶17} Requester’s argument that the email addresses document Milford’s
decision-making process is not persuasive. Although Milford likely considered the
substance of the emails (which were produced) when addressing this sensitive matter, it
is hard to understand how something as cryptic as an email address factored into that
decision. Requester offers no explanation or evidence on this point, so I recommend that
this argument be rejected
{¶18} Requester’s argument that Milford waived this objection because it
supposedly produced emails that included addresses in the past fails because he offers
no proof of that alleged fact. Tentacles of Cuyahoga Cty. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s
Office, 2024-Ohio-6142, ¶ 8, adopted 2025-Ohio-472 (Ct. of Cl.) (requester asserting
waiver has the burden of proving facts giving rise to waiver).
Case No. 2025-00570PQ -6- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶19} I therefore recommend that the court deny relief in connection with this
request.2
C. Requester is entitled to recover his filing fee and costs; respondent should
bear the balance of the costs.
{¶20} 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[.]” Requester was aggrieved by Milford withholding entire
documents including materials protected by FERPA and R.C. 3319.321. I therefore
recommend that he recover his filing fee and the costs he incurred in this case. I also
recommend that Milford bear the balance of the costs of this case.
III. Conclusion.
{¶21} Based on those considerations, I recommend that the court:
A. Order respondent to produce unredacted copies of pp. 3-278 of the
records filed for in camera review subject only to the redactions listed
in the appendix to this report and recommendation
B. Order respondent to take that action within 30 days from the entry of a
judgment adopting this report and recommendation.
C. Order respondent to file and serve an affirmation that it has taken that
action within 40 days of the entry of a judgment adopting this report and
recommendation.
D. Order respondent to reimburse requester for his filing fee and costs in
this case.
E. Order respondent to pay the balance of the costs of this case.
F. Deny all other relief.
2 Some of the Redacted Records contain redactions with other bases, but requester has
not specifically challenged those redactions. This report therefore does not analyze those
redactions. State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177, ¶ 24, n. 2.
See also, Welsh-Huggins, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 29 (scrutiny of exemptions triggered when
“the government’s asserted exemption is challenged”); State ex rel. Repository v. Nova
Behavioral Health, Inc., 2006-Ohio-6713, 859 N.E.2d 936, ¶ 41(claim not pled is not
considered).
Case No. 2025-00570PQ -7- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶22} 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
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
Appendix
Appropriate Redactions
- The deceased student’s name.
- The name and email address of the deceased student’s mother.
- The body of the mother’s emails.
- The body of and attachments to all emails with the subject of “Vigil.”
- The January 28, 2025, email from Dr. Arnold to the mother of the deceased
student.
Filed July 29, 2025
Sent to S.C. Reporter 8/14/25