Opinion

Parks v. Webb

  • 2018 Ohio 1716
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Filed
Apr 17, 2018
Status
Published
On the bench
McGrath
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

[Cite as Parks v. Webb, 2018-Ohio-1716.]

MICHAEL R. PARKS Case No. 2017-00995PQ

Requester Judge Patrick M. McGrath

v. ENTRY ADOPTING

RECOMMENDATION OF

PATRICIA WEBB SPECIAL MASTER

Respondent

{¶1} On December 6, 2017, requester Michael Parks made a public records

request to respondent Patricia Webb, Clerk, Pickaway County Board of Commissioners

(PCBC) for the minutes of the December 5, 2017 PCBC meeting “in whatever format

they are in at the time of this email.” (Response, Exh. A.) Webb provided Parks with a

copy of the minutes in PDF format, although Webb kept the minutes in DOC (Microsoft

Word) format. (Response, Exh. B.) On December 13, 2017, Parks responded: “The

record sent is not what I requested.” (Id.) On December 18, 2017, Pickaway County

Administrator Brad Lutz emailed Parks that the requested records had been provided as

required by law (Response, Exh. C.), incorporating by reference previous

correspondence in which he advised that “[i]t is not appropriate nor required by

sunshine law to send a document that can be edited, such as a Word document.”

(Complaint at 4.)

{¶2} On December 20, 2017, requester Michael Parks filed a complaint under

R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of timely access to public records in violation of

R.C. 149.43(B). On March 22, 2018, Special Master Clark issued a report

recommending that the court GRANT Parks’ claim for production of the requested

records in the format they were kept by the office at the time of the request.

{¶3} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) states, in part: “Either party may object to the report and

recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and

recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk * * *.” No objections were

Case No. 2017-00995PQ -2- ENTRY

filed by either party. The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect

evident on the face of the Special Master’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the

Special Master’s report and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and

conclusions of law contained therein.

{¶4} Court costs are assessed against the respondent, and respondent is further

ordered to make payment of twenty-five dollars to requester as recovery of his filing fee

in this case. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of

entry upon the journal.

PATRICK M. McGRATH

Judge

Filed April 17, 2018

Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/4/18

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.