[Cite as Geauga Cty. Prosecutor's Office v. Munson Fire Dept., 2023-Ohio-3958.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
GEAUGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S Case No. 2023-00503PQ
OFFICE
Special Master Todd Marti
Requester
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
v.
MUNSON FIRE DEPARTMENT
Respondent
{¶1} This matter is before the special master for a R.C. 2743.75(F) report and
recommendation. The special master recommends that (1) Respondent be ordered to
produce unredacted copies of the records filed for in camera review or to explain the
redactions, (2) that Requester recover its filing fee and costs, and (3) that Respondent
bear any remaining costs of this case.
I. Background
{¶2} Respondent Munson Fire Department (“the Department”) is a non-profit
corporation that contracted with Munson Township (“the Township”) to provide fire
protection and emergency medical services. It is the Township’s de facto fire department,
as discussed more fully below. Respondent’s Evidence, filed September 15, 2023, pp. 6-
12; Motion to Dismiss/Verified Response of Munson Fire Department, Inc, filed
September 26, 2023 (“MTD”), pp. 1-2.1
{¶3} The Geauga County Prosecutor’s Office (“the Prosecutor”) made two public
records requests to the Department. The Department denied that it is a public office
subject to the Public Records Act, but provided some records responsive to those
requests in redacted form. When pressed about the redactions, the Department declined
to explain the redactions or to produce unredacted copies, reiterating its position that it is
1 All references to specific pages of matters publicly filed in this case are to pages of the PDF copies
posted on the Court’s on-line docket.
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
not a public office subject to the Public Records Act. The Prosecutor brought this case to
obtain unredacted copies of those records or an explanation for the redactions.
Complaint, filed July 27, 2023, pp. 4, 5, 9.
{¶4} The case was not resolved through mediation, so the special master set a
schedule for the parties to submit evidence and memoranda supporting their positions.
R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(e); Order, entered August 31, 2023; Order, entered October 3, 2023.
The parties have made those filings and the case is ripe for decision.
II. Analysis.
A. The Department is obligated to produce unredacted copies of the responsive
records or to explain the basis for its redactions.
{¶5} R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires a “public office” to produce public records upon
receiving a proper request. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and (3) require a public office to explain
any redactions it makes to records it produces. The Department does not claim that the
Prosecutor’s requests were defective or dispute that the materials at issue would be
public records, albeit subject to redactions. It instead argues that R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and
(3) do not apply to it because it is a private entity.
{¶6} The fact that an entity is private does not automatically exempt it from the
Public Records Act; the Act applies to private entities in several circumstances where
their activities impact public affairs. It applies to records of a private entity formed pursuant
to Ohio law to exercise a function of government. Schiffbauer v. Banaszak, 142 Ohio
St.3d 535, 2015-Ohio-1854, 33 N.E.3d 52; 2006 Ohio Atty. Gen. Ops. No. 2006-37, 2006
Ohio AG LEXIS 50, at *15. It applies to records of a private entity that is the “functional
equivalent” of a public office. State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio
St.3d 456, 2006-Ohio-4854, 854 N.E.2d 193. The “quasi-agency” doctrine applies the
Act to specific records in a private entity’s possession that are related to a delegated
public function. State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 163 Ohio St.3d 304,
2021-Ohio-1176, 170 N.E.3d 19. Finally, R.C. 149.431(A) makes records related to a non-
profit entity’s contracts with a public body accessible through R.C. 149.43(B).
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶7} The Prosecutor asserts two bases for applying the Act to the Department. It
claims that the Department is the functional equivalent of a public office, and invokes the
quasi-agency doctrine. Both bases are present here.
1. The Department is the functional equivalent of a public office.
{¶8} The courts consider multiple factors in determining whether a private entity is
the functional equivalent of a public office, but the analysis is centered around four
inquiries:
- Does the entity perform a governmental function?
- What level of public funding does the entity receive?
- What is the extent of government involvement in or regulation of the entity?
- Was the entity created by the government or to avoid the requirements of the
Public Records Act?
Oriana, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, ¶¶ 23, 25; Schutte v. Gorman Heritage Farm Found., Ct. of
Cl. No. 2018-01029PQ, 2019-Ohio-1611, ¶ 7, adopted 2019-Ohio-1818 (McGrath, J.), An
otherwise private entity can be a functional equivalent without all four inquires suggesting
that result, and no one inquiry is automatically dispositive. State ex rel. Harm Reduction
Ohio v. Oneohio Recovery Found.,__ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1547, __ N.E.2d ___, ¶¶
23, 32. The functional equivalence analysis starts with a presumption that the private
entity is not a functional equivalent. That presumption must be overcome with clear and
convincing evidence. Oriana, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, ¶ 26.
a. The Department performs a governmental function.
{¶9} The Department provides fire and emergency medical services for the
Township. Statutes and case law conclusively establish that those are governmental
functions.
{¶10} The Revised Code requires townships to provide fire protection in some form
and gives them inherently governmental powers to further fire safety. They may legislate
substantive fire safety standards, levy taxes, and appropriate property to further fire
safety. R.C. 505.37(E), R.C. 505.38, R.C. 505.373, R.C. 505.39. The Township has in
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
fact levied taxes for fire protection since at least 2004.2 Consistent with that,
R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(a) explicitly states that fire protection and emergency medical
services are governmental functions.
{¶11} The cases have imported R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(a)’s statement into the
functional equivalent analysis. Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153 (5th
Dist.), ¶ 38; S/O ex rel. Am. Ctr. for Economic Equality v. Jackson, 2015-Ohio-4981, 53
N.E.3d 788 (8th Dist.), ¶ 20. The Supreme Court has independently held that fire
protection is a governmental function, albeit in a case that preceded the functional
equivalence standard. State ex rel. Freedom Communs. v. Elida Community Fire Co., 82
Ohio St.3d 578, 580, 697 N.E.2d 210 (1998).
{¶12} This factor supports functional equivalence.
b. The Department receives significant amounts of public funding and
does so in a way that reinforces its public role.
{¶13} Two considerations are relevant here.
{¶14} The first is the relative proportion of the entity’s funding that comes from
public sources. Harm Reduction, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1547, ¶¶ 22, 23. Logic
dictates that the larger the portion, the more likely it is that the entity is the functional
2 Ohio Auditor of State, Munson Township, Geauga County, Regular Audit for Year ended December
31, 2004, (“2004 Audit”), p. 7; Ohio Auditor of State, Munson Township, Geauga County, Regular Audit for
Year ended December 31, 2005, (“2005 Audit”), p. 20; Ohio Auditor of State, Munson Township, Geauga
County, Regular Audit for Years ended December 31, 2007 & 2006, (“2007 & 2006 Audit) Audit”), pp. 3,
18; Ohio Auditor of State, Munson Township, Geauga County, Regular Audit for Year ended December 31,
2014, (“2014 Audit”), p. 3; Ohio Auditor of State, Regular Audit of Munson Township for the years ended
December 31, 2021, and 2020, (“2021 & 2020 Audit”), pp. 5, 18. All references to specific pages of those
audits are based on the internal pagination of the audits. Those audits are available at:
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2007/Munson_Township_04-Geauga.pdf (2004)
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2007/Munson_Township_05-Geauga.pdf (2005)
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2009/Munson_Township_07_06-Geauga.pdf (2007 & 2006)
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2014/Munson_Township_13-12-Geauga.pdf (2014)
https://ohioauditor.gov/AuditSearch/Reports/2022/Munson_Township_2021_20-Geauga_FINAL.pdf
(2021 & 2020) (all accessed October 16, 2023).
The special master takes judicial notice of those audits because they are certified and the parties either
have not objected to or are not prejudiced by that action. See State ex rel. Pike Cty. Convention & Visitor's
Bur. v. Pike Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 165 Ohio St.3d 590, 2021-Ohio-4031, 180 N.E.3d 1135, ¶ 2, n. 3.
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
equivalent of a public office. In this case, the Department swears that approximately 80%
of its funding comes from public sources. MTD, p. 7.3 That is higher than levels that this
and other courts found sufficient to support functional equivalence. Sheil v. Horton, Ct. of
Cl. No. 2017-00772PQ, 2018-Ohio-1720, ¶ 9, (32% supports functional equivalence),
Aff’d, 2018-Ohio-5240, 117 N.E.3d 194 (8th Dist.), ¶ 30. See also State ex rel. Luken v.
Corp. for Findlay Mkt. of Cincinnati, 2012-Ohio-2074, 972 N.E.2d 607 (1st Dist.), ¶ 26
(“We further agree with the magistrate's conclusion that the city's funding of CFMC —
which totaled nearly half of its revenue in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010—is not just
significant, but overwhelming”).
{¶15} The second consideration is the way that the public funding is calculated.
Ohio is not alone in adopting the functional equivalence test. Oriana, 110 Ohio St.3d 456,
¶ 21. Courts employing that approach elsewhere are more likely to find functional
equivalence if the public funding is transferred in bulk, rather than on a set fee for specific
instance of service basis Telford v. Bd. of Commrs., 95 Wash.App. 149, 164, 974 P.2d
886 (1999); Greenwich Emergency Med. Serv. v. Freedom of Information Comm.,
Super.Ct. No. HHBCV176039788S, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1777 (June 18, 2019),
**20-21. See also, Weston v. Carolina Research & Dev. Found., 303 S.C. 398, 404, 401
S.E.2d 161 (1991). That is consistent with the Ohio law principle that a private for-profit
entity does not become subject to the Public Records Act simply by contracting with a
public body. Oriana, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, ¶ 29; Elida Community Fire Co., 82 Ohio St.3d
at 580. The Department’s public funding comes from a complete transfer of the
Township’s Fire and EMS funding; it is not calculated based on how many runs the
Department makes or how many other instances of services it performs. Respondent’s
Evidence, p. 11.
{¶16} This factor also supports functional equivalence.
c. The Township is significantly involved in the Department’s operation.
{¶17} This factor considers “the extent of government involvement or regulation”
of the private entity. Oriana, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, ¶ 22 (emphasis added). That disjunctive
3 Although statements in unsworn memoranda are not evidence, the MTD is verified. It is therefore
the equivalent of an affidavit.
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -6- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
phrasing is worth noting; it indicates that either significant involvement or regulation can
support functional equivalence. Sheil v. Horton, 2018-Ohio-5240, 117 N.E.3d 194 (8th
Dist.), ¶ 35. See also, Harm Reduction, __, Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1547, ¶ 30, 31
(noting the disjunctive phrasing of another functional equivalence factor). An entity is likely
to be a functional equivalent if it is closely intertwined with a government body, even if
that body does not control the entity’s day-to-day actions. Sheil 117 N.E.3d 194, ¶¶ 32-
35. Undisputed facts establish that the Township and the Department are intertwined on
multiple levels.
{¶18} The Department has a close, fiduciary, relationship with the Township. It has
been expressly designated as the Township’s “agent for fire and Emergency Medical
Services.” Respondent’s Evidence, p. 5 (emphasis added). An agent is a fiduciary of its
principal, and that is an inherently close relationship. Restatement of the Law 3d, Agency,
Section 1.01, Comment e. Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted the importance of the
private entity’s fiduciary duties to the public body (or lack thereof) in evaluating whether
a private entity is a public office. State ex rel. Stys v. Parma Community Gen. Hosp., 93
Ohio St.3d 438, 441, 755 N.E.2d 874 (2001).
{¶19} The Township and the Department are operationally intertwined in multiple
ways:
- The Township provides the facilities the Department operates from.
Respondent’s Evidence, p. 8.
- The Township has significant control over the Department’s equipment. It
leases some of that equipment for the Department. 2014 Audit, p. 8; 2021 &
2021 Audit, pp. 10-11, 23-24. Some of the Department’s equipment is titled in
the Township’s name. 2005 Audit, p. 17; 2007 & 2006 Audit, p.23;
Respondent’s Evidence, p. 7. The Department must verify to the Township the
details of its actions to maintain its equipment. Id., p. 7.
- The Township must approve certain of the Department’s significant
expenditures. Id., pp. 8, 10.
- The Department must apprise the Township of changes to its employee
policies. Id., p. 6.
- The Department must include the township in its insurance coverage and keep
the township apprised of its insurance policies. Id., p. 7.
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -7- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶20} Their close relationship is also reflected in the Township’s public
persona. The Township’s website presents the Department as a part of
the Township’s overall operations. Munson Township, Munson Fire Department,
http://www.munsontwp.com/New_Site/FireDepartment.html (accessed October 16,
2023). The Auditor of State considers their interactions, the Township funds that support
the Department, and the impact of those funds on the Township’s overall financial status
in its audits of the Township. 2004 Audit, pp. 7,8; 2005 Audit, pp. 3, 5, 7, 17, 20, 23; 2007
& 2006 Audit, pp. 3, 5,12, 15, 17, 20, 33, 34, 38, 43; 2014 Audit, pp. 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17,
19; 21; 2021 & 2020 Audit, pp. 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25. This and other courts have
held that such matters support functional equivalence. Sheil, 2018-Ohio-1720, ¶¶ 12, 13;
Aff’d, 2018-Ohio-5240, 117 N.E.3d 194 (8th Dist.), ¶ 33.
{¶21} In sum, the interactions between the Department and the Township do not
evince an arm’s length, vendor-customer or independent contractor relationship. Instead,
they are in a fiduciary relationship. The Department likely could not operate without the
Township because the Township controls the Department’s facilities and equipment.
Their close relationship is presented to the public and analyzed in the Township’s audits.
{¶22} The Department and the Township are indeed intertwined. This factor
supports functional equivalence.
d. There is no evidence that the Department was formed by government
or to evade the Public Records Act.
{¶23} Neither party has submitted evidence on this point. This factor does not
support functional equivalence.
e. The weight of the factors clearly and convincingly establishes
functional equivalence.
{¶24} The special master finds that those and other factors clearly and convincingly
establish that the Department is the functional equivalent of a public office. There are four
bases for that conclusion.
{¶25} First, three out of the four basic factors support that conclusion. This is not a
close case when considered on that basis.
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -8- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶26} Second, equivalence is supported by the complete transfer of the
government function involved. The cases suggest that equivalence is more likely when a
public body makes a wholesale delegation of its duties to a private entity. State ex rel.
Repository v. Nova Behavioral Health, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 338, 2006-Ohio-6713, 859
N.E.2d 936, ¶ 28; Harm Reduction, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1547, __ N.E.3d __ ¶
34. See also, State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 80
Ohio St.3d 134, 137, 684 N.E.2d 1222 (1997) (“Government entities cannot conceal
public records by delegating a public duty to a private entity”). That makes sense; rejecting
equivalence in that context forecloses public scrutiny of a whole area of government
operations, a result at odds with the fundamental purpose of the Public Records Act and
the democratic principles it furthers. As one court applying the functional equivalence
test elsewhere observed, “the public's fundamental right to scrutinize the performance of
public services and the expenditure of public funds should not be subverted * * * merely
because public duties have been delegated[.]” Memphis Publishing Co. v. Cherokee
Children & Family Servs., 87 S.W.3d 67, 78 (Tenn.2002).
{¶27} That is what we have here. This is not a case where government simply hired
a vendor to help it continue to perform its functions. Instead, it involves a transfer of all
aspects of a basic function, transferring all funding and all functionality to the private
entity. It is an understatement to say that the Department is the “equivalent” of the
Township in this area; the reality is that it is the Township for all intents and purposes.
{¶28} The importance of this consideration is heightened by the public’s strong
interest in the function delegated and the scale of the public funding involved. Few areas
of local government are more basic—and can cause more serious harm if done poorly—
than fire/EMS services. Moreover, the sheer amount of public money involved gives the
public a strong interest in this delegation. Funds spent on fire protection have historically
been among the largest categories of Township disbursements, and recent audits report
that those expenditures have been well over a $1,000,000 a year. 2005 Audit, p. 7; 2007
& 2006 Audit, pp. 12, 15, 33; 2014 Audit, pp. 7, 12, 14, 17; 2021 & 2020 Audit, pp. 4, 17,
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -9- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
18.4 The public therefore has an exceedingly strong interest in being able to scrutinize
the entity that actually performs that function and actually spends that money. A finding
against equivalence would frustrate that, effectively placing the Department’s operations
and those funds in a black box.
{¶29} Third, that result is indirectly, but strongly, supported by precedents
predating the functional equivalence standard.
{¶30} One precedent is State ex rel. Freedom Communs. v. Elida Community Fire
Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 578, 697 N.E.2d 210 (1998). That case held that a private entity
providing fire protection for a township—the same relationship involved here—was a
public office. Although Elida preceded the functional equivalence test, it has never been
overruled. Its factual similarity makes it an extremely persuasive authority, regardless of
whether it continues to be binding.
{¶31} The other precedent is State ex rel. Stys v. Parma Community Gen. Hosp.,
93 Ohio St.3d 438, 755 N.E.2d 874 (2001). That case rejected public office status based
on several facts that are the negative image of this case. One was that the private entity
was operationally independent. Id. at 441. The Department, in contrast, is dependent
upon public resources; it operates out of the Township’s facility and mostly with the
Township’s equipment. Another fact Parma considered was that the private entity was
not a fiduciary of the public bodies and did not otherwise represent those bodies. Id. The
Department is a fiduciary of the Township as Township’s agent and the Township publicly
touts the Department as part of its operations. A third important fact was that the private
entity received no tax funding. Id. at 443. The Department receives all the proceeds from
the Township’s fire levy. That those facts point in the opposite direction than they did in
Parma, so Pama supports an opposite result, that the private entity at issue here is a
public office.
{¶32} Fourth, the Department’s arguments to the contrary are not particularly
strong. It places considerable weight on contractual language giving it control over its
4 The audits sometimes refer to funds spent on fire protection as funds spent on “public safety,” a
category that includes fire/EMS services. 2005 Audit, pp. 3, 7; 2007 & 2006 Audit, p.33; 2014 Audit, p. 7.
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -10- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
day-to-day operations, but such control is not necessary if the entity is otherwise
intertwined with government, as is the case here. Sheil 117 N.E.3d 194, ¶¶ 32-35. The
Department’s assertion that other private fire companies have not been evaluated under
Public Records Act tells us nothing about how it measures up under those laws. The
aspersions the Department casts on the Prosecutor’s motives are both unproven and
immaterial given that a requester “may inspect and copy a public record * * * irrespective
of his or her purpose for doing so.” State ex rel. Fant v. Enright, 66 Ohio St.3d 186, 186,
610 N.E.2d 997 (1993) (syllabus, internal punctuation omitted). The Department’s policy
argument about administrative burdens is speculative. Further, when the functional
equivalent test is met “the policy of governmental openness that underlies the Public
Records Act is the one that must be honored.” Harm Reduction, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-
Ohio-1547, __ N.E.3d __ ¶ 36 (quoting State ex rel. Repository v. Nova Behavioral Health,
Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 338, 2006-Ohio-6713, 859 N.E.2d 936, ¶ 39).
{¶33} The special master therefore recommends that the court find that the
Department is the functional equivalent of a public office.
2. The quasi-agency doctrine also requires the Department to provide the
records requested.
{¶34} The quasi-agency doctrine allows access to records in a private party’s
possession that are related to a delegated public function. State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain
Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 163 Ohio St.3d 304, 2021-Ohio-1176, 170 N.E.3d 19, ¶¶ 16-18;
State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, 170 Ohio St.3d 239, 2022-
Ohio-3990, 210 N.E.3d 518, ¶¶ 6-14. It is based on the settled premise that public
“entities cannot conceal public records by delegating a public duty to a private entity.”
State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 80 Ohio St.3d 134,
137, 684 N.E.2d 1222 (1997); State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Information Network v.
Shirey, 78 Ohio St.3d 400, 403, 678 N.E.2d 557 (1997); State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer
v. Krings, 93 Ohio St.3d 654, 659, 758 N.E.2d 1135 (2001). Because of that, that quasi-
agency doctrine applies even if the private entity is not the functional equivalent of a public
office. Armatas, 163 Ohio St.3d 304, ¶ 15, n. 3. A requester is entitled to records under
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -11- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
this test if it shows that the records sought are related to a delegated governmental
function. Id. at ¶ 16.
{¶35} The Prosecutor has made that showing. The records at issue document the
compensation paid to individuals who provide fire protection. Requester’s Evidence, p. 6;
Respondent Munson Fire Department, Inc.’s Notice of filing Documents under Seal, filed
September 13, 2023. R.C. 505.38 imposes the duty to provide fire protection in some
form on the Township. That is a governmental function, as discussed above. The
Township has delegated that function to the Department, designating the Department as
its “agent for fire and Emergency Medical Services.” Respondent’s Evidence, p. 5. The
quasi-agency doctrine applies here.
{¶36} That is not changed by the Department’s argument that the Prosecutor
waived any claim based on the quasi-agency doctrine. That doctrine was pled, albeit
under the different label of the “delegation of duties test.,” Complaint, pp. 2, 38. That was
sufficient to put the Department on notice of the quasi-agency claim because the doctrine
addresses records related to delegated governmental duties. Krings, 93 Ohio St.3d at
659; Shirey, 78 Ohio St.3d at 403; Findlay Publishing, 80 Ohio St.3d at 137; Armatas,
163 Ohio St.3d 304, ¶¶ 14, 16-17; Ames, 170 Ohio St.3d 239, ¶ 17.
***
{¶37} Given the Department’s status as the functional equivalent of a public office
and the Prosecutor’s showing that the quasi-agency doctrine applies here, the special
master recommends that the Department be ordered to produce unredacted copies of the
records filed for in camera review or to explain the redactions.
B. Costs.
{¶38} R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b) provides that the “aggrieved person shall be entitled
to recover from the public office or person responsible for the public records the amount
of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action[.]”
The Prosecutor was aggrieved by the Department’s withholding of the unredacted
records/its failure to explain the redactions. The Prosecutor is therefore entitled to recover
its filing fee and all costs incurred in this case, exclusive of attorneys’ fees. The
Department should bear the balance of the costs of this case.
Case No. 2023-00503PQ -12- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
III. Conclusion.
{¶39} In light of the foregoing the special master recommends that:
A. Respondent be ordered to produce unredacted copies of the records filed
for in camera review or to explain the redactions.
B. Requester recover its filing fee and costs, exclusive of attorney fees.
C. Respondent bear any remaining costs of this case.
{¶40} 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 R. MARTI
Special Master
Filed October 17, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 11/1/23