The Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying when public offices can treat records requests as discovery demands, holding that a defendant's request for documents from an unrelated criminal case falls outside the scope of Ohio's public records discovery exception.
In *State ex rel. Luikart v. Washington Court House* (2026-Ohio-111), the court addressed whether the City of Washington Court House properly handled a public records request under R.C. 149.43(G), which allows public offices to treat certain requests as discovery demands in litigation.
The case arose when Luikart, a defendant in a criminal proceeding, submitted a public records request to the city seeking documents from a separate, unrelated criminal case. The city treated this request as a discovery demand under R.C. 149.43(G), which permits public offices to delay responses when requests are "related to defendant's action."
The court held that Luikart's request did not qualify as a discovery demand because it concerned an unrelated criminal case. The justices emphasized that R.C. 149.43(G) only applies when public records requests are directly related to the requester's own litigation, not to separate legal proceedings.
"A defendant's public-records request for documents from unrelated criminal case is not a request related to defendant's action for purposes of R.C. 149.43(G)," the court wrote. The ruling establishes that public offices cannot automatically treat requests as discovery simply because the requester is involved in litigation elsewhere.
The court also addressed the city's claim that it acted in good faith by believing the request qualified as a discovery demand under R.C. 149.43(G). The justices rejected this argument, ruling that "public office's purported good-faith belief that request was a discovery demand under R.C. 149.43(G) does not change that reasonableness of response time is measured by date of request, not date that public office's motion for judgment on pleadings was denied."
This aspect of the ruling clarifies that the timeline for evaluating response reasonableness begins when the request is made, regardless of when a public office realizes its interpretation was incorrect. The decision protects requesters from delayed responses based on misapplied legal theories.
The court's opinion also addressed procedural questions about statutory damages under Ohio's public records law. The justices ruled that multiple emails sent on the same day to the same office concerning related court docket items constitute a single transmission for damages purposes. This interpretation prevents public offices from facing multiplied penalties for requests that are essentially part of one inquiry.
Regarding damages, the court found that the city "failed to establish that its reliance on R.C. 149.43(G) warranted reducing or denying statutory-damages award." The justices awarded Luikart $1,000 in statutory damages while denying the writ as moot, likely because the records were eventually produced.
The ruling provides important guidance for both public offices and records requesters about the scope of R.C. 149.43(G). Public offices cannot broadly interpret the discovery exception to delay responses when requesters happen to be involved in litigation. The exception applies only when the specific records requested relate directly to the requester's own legal proceedings.
This decision reinforces Ohio's commitment to government transparency under the public records law. The statute generally requires prompt responses to records requests, with limited exceptions. Courts have consistently emphasized that exceptions should be narrowly construed to preserve public access to government information.
For practitioners, the ruling clarifies that criminal defendants retain full public records rights regarding unrelated cases. Defense attorneys can request records from other proceedings without having those requests treated as discovery, which often involves different timelines and procedures.
The case also demonstrates the importance of proper legal analysis when public offices receive records requests. Good faith mistakes about legal interpretations do not excuse delayed responses or shield offices from statutory damages. Public officials must carefully evaluate whether requests truly fall within statutory exceptions before invoking them.
Looking ahead, this decision may influence how public offices handle records requests from parties involved in litigation. The ruling suggests that offices should err on the side of treating requests under standard public records procedures unless there is a clear connection between the requested records and the requester's specific legal case.
The court's approach balances legitimate discovery concerns with public records access rights. While R.C. 149.43(G) remains available for truly related requests, this ruling prevents its misapplication in ways that would undermine transparency.
The *Luikart* decision joins a line of Ohio Supreme Court cases interpreting the state's public records law. These decisions consistently favor broad access while providing clear guidance about when exceptions apply, helping ensure that Ohio's commitment to government transparency remains strong.