The opinion
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Justine Michael, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
The State ex rel. Eaton City School District Board of
Education et al., Appellees, v. State Employment Relations
Board, Appellant.
[Cite as State ex rel. Eaton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1992), Ohio St.3d .]
State Employment Relations Board -- Investigatory file compiled
by SERB must be disclosed upon request -- Files excepted
from disclosure, when.
(No. 91-14 -- Submitted May 19, 1992 -- Decided August 12,
1992.)
Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,
Nos. 87AP-860 and 87AP-1132.
In separate actions, the State Employment Relations Board
("SERB") issued a complaint against the Eaton City School
District Board of Education ("Eaton") alleging a violation of
R.C. 4117.11(A)(1) and (3) in not renewing an employment
contract, and an unfair labor practice charge against the
Batavia Local School District Board of Education ("Batavia"),
which SERB later dismissed. Eaton and Batavia seek to inspect
and copy all records prepared by SERB during its investigation
of each case. SERB refused to disclose these records, and the
school boards each filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court
of Appeals for Franklin County, seeking to compel SERB to
produce the records.
The court of appeals rejected SERB's arguments for
nondisclosure, conducted an in camera inspection of the
records, and issued the writ as to both complaints.
This cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.
Ennis, Roberts & Fischer Co., L.P.A., and J. Michael
Fischer, for appellees.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Joseph M. Oser, for
appellant.
Per Curiam. SERB argues that the investigatory files are
not public records and that, alternatively, the records are
either trial preparation records or law enforcement
investigatory records. In Franklin Cty. Sheriff's Dept. v.
State Emp. Relations Bd. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 498, 589 N.E.2d
24, we rejected arguments identical to those advanced in this
case.
Paragraph one of the syllabus in Franklin Cty. Sheriff;s
Dept. holds:
"Investigatory files compiled by the State Employment
Relations Board pursuant to R.C. 4117.12 must be disclosed upon
request pursuant to R.C. 4117.17 and 149.43 unless an in camera
inspection demonstrates that all or any portions of the files
are excepted from disclosure. Excepted information may be
redacted prior to disclosure."
The appellate court, here, inspected the records in camera
and found nothing to except or redact. Accordingly, we affirm
the issuance of the writ.
However, SERB validly questions the breadth of the
appellate court's decision. In the Eaton case, it is
undisputed SERB did not submit certain records it considered to
be its work product and not sought by Eaton. The court of
appeals referee, apparently without reviewing these records,
nevertheless recommended that SERB be ordered to disclose its
entire investigatory file. Thus, we limit the writ to the
submitted records.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals issuing the writ. However, in the Eaton case, we limit
the court of appeals' decision to the submitted records. If
Eaton seeks the withheld records, the court of appeals shall
inspect them in camera, pursuant to Franklin County Sheriff's
Dept., supra, and rule upon their disclosure.
Judgment affirmed,
as modified.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown
and Resnick, JJ., concur.