holding that exceptions to the Public Records Act are not in the nature of confession and avoidance because the assertion of an exception does not admit the allegations are true, i.e. it does not admit that the requested records are “public”
How later courts described this case
- holding that exceptions to the Public Records Act are not in the nature of confession and avoidance because the assertion of an exception does not admit the allegations are true, i.e. it does not admit that the requested records are “public”
- stating that “[a]n affirmative defense is waived under Civ.R. 12(H), unless it is presented by motion before pleading pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B), affirmatively in a responsive pleading under Civ.R. 8(C), or by amendment under Civ.R. 15”
- recognizing that an affirmative defense is “a new matter [that], assuming the complaint to be true, constitutes a defense to it”
- finding in a mandamus action that disclosure of resumes for police chief required under Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. While I concur with the majority that a writ of mandamus should be granted, I dissent from its award of attorney fees.
Respondent had reasonable grounds to withhold the requested documents because of the uncertainty in the law. at the time relator requested them. See State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Health (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 1, 4 , 553 N.E.2d 1345, 1347 .
I also note that if this case had involved applicants who had been assured that their applications would be kept confidential, a different issue would have been before this court.
Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.