[Cite as State ex rel. Patituce & Scott L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 2013-Ohio-704.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 99036
STATE, EX REL. PATITUCE &
SCOTT L.L.C., ET AL.
RELATORS
vs.
CITY OF CLEVELAND
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion Nos. 462393 and 461819
Order No. 462731
RELEASE DATE: February 26, 2013
FOR RELATORS
Megan Patituce
Catherine Meehan
Patituce & Scott, L.L.C.
26777 Lorain Road, Suite 708
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Barbara A. Langhenry
Director of Law
By: Alejandro V. Cortes
William M. Menzalora
Assistant Directors of Law
City of Cleveland Department of Law
601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶1} On October 9, 2012, the relators, Patituce & Scott, L.L.C., and Jennifer
Scott, commenced this public records mandamus action against the respondent, the city of
Cleveland. The public records request sought the personnel files, training certificates,
disciplinary reports, and continuing education hours for twelve named Cleveland police
officers. Previously, Cleveland had rejected the public records request on the basis that
it was an improper request for criminal discovery pursuant to State ex rel. Steckman v.
Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83 (1994). The relators sought the records,
statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
{¶2} On January 22, 2013, Cleveland moved for summary judgment on the
grounds of mootness. Cleveland had released all of the requested records to the relators
on December 6, 2012. Cleveland noted that one of the officers was not employed by
Cleveland; thus, there were no records relating to that officer. Cleveland, pursuant to
specified exemptions, redacted certain personal information, such as social security
numbers, employee house numbers and street names, day and month of birth, personal
telephone numbers, family information, medical records, and the photographs of the
officers. Cleveland also argued that the relators were not entitled to statutory damages
because they had not fulfilled the statutory prerequisite of submitting the request in
person or by certified mail. Nor were the relators entitled to attorney fees because they
had not shown a public benefit.
{¶3} On February 12, 2013, the relators belatedly filed their response to
Cleveland’s motion for summary judgment and moved for their own summary judgment.
In this filing, the relators admit that the matter is moot because the requested records have
been released. Nor do they contest the redactions, statutory damages, or attorney fees.
The relators seek court costs, which have to be awarded.
{¶4} Accordingly, this court grants both summary judgment motions. This
public records mandamus action is moot; the relators have received their requested
records. Thus, the court denies the application for a writ of mandamus. The relators
are not entitled to statutory damages or attorney fees. Respondent to pay court costs.
This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date
of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶5} Writ denied.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR