The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that the Lakota Local Schools Board of Education must publicly release a letter on behalf of the former school superintendent that allegedly threatened a lawsuit.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court found a “demand letter” sent by an attorney representing former superintendent Matthew Miller to the school board’s attorney was a public record. The letter was sought as part of an early January 2023 public records request by Vanessa Wells, a resident of the Butler County school district.

The Court found the district improperly withheld the letter and requests for communications between Miller’s private attorney, Elizabeth Tuck, and attorneys representing the district. The Court also found the district improperly redacted public information from records Wells requested about how much the district was spending for legal services related to a drawn-out dispute between Miller and school board members.

The Court ruled that Lakota owes Wells $2,000 in damages for failing to promptly turn over public records and must pay her court costs. Wells is also entitled to attorney fees to be paid by Lakota. The fees must be calculated and submitted to the Court for approval.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, Jennifer Brunner, and Joseph T. Deters joined the opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer partially joined the opinion, stating that he would not award Wells the $2,000 in statutory damages.

Dispute Leads to Records Request
In January 2023, Wells sent a public records request to the school district and to Brodi Conover, an attorney with Bricker Graydon, a law firm hired by the district to represent it on public records requests.

Wells sought all documents and correspondence from Tuck to school board members regarding Tuck’s representation of Miller. Conover emailed Wells the next day, telling her the request was too broad for the district to fulfill. He provided Wells with a copy of a November 2022 cease-and-desist letter that Tuck sent to one school board member. That letter demanded the board member stop defaming Miller and threatened litigation if the actions persisted.

Wells followed up with an email attempting to clarify her records request. She also added that she wanted records that included an investigation by Jackson Lewis, a national employment law firm the district hired in September 2022 to investigate Miller. She also sought all “notices, legal documents, letters to preserve, cease and desist & all other attachments and communications in regard to Matthew Miller” between September 2022 and January 2023.

Conover replied by resending her the Tuck cease-and-desist letter. He denied the other documents she requested. He said the records she sought were either communications protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege or were not public records because they were communications between two private law firms.

Wells sent a separate public records request later in January 2023 seeking all legal invoices and documents regarding the payment of legal services from January 2022 to January 2023.

Conover sent the invoices but redacted the names of the attorneys providing the services, the hours spent to provide the service, the attorneys’ rates, and the short description of the service provided. He also redacted bank-account-related information.

Record Requestor Sues District
In February 2023, Wells sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, asking it to order the district to produce the records she sought, including the unredacted copies of the legal invoices. The district was directed to provide the Court with unredacted copies of the documents so the justices could conduct an in camera inspection.

Concerning the communication between the law firms and the district, Wells argued she was told of a “demand letter” sent to the school board members by Tuck that threatened a lawsuit. The demand letter was separate from the cease-and-desist letter Tuck sent to one board member.

The Court’s opinion noted the demand letter contained a settlement offer sent by Tuck on Miller’s behalf. Miller left the district at the end of January 2023 but did not file a lawsuit against the district or its board members.

Lakota schools argued the demand letter was properly withheld because it was protected by attorney-client privilege and exempted from disclosure.

The Court noted that under the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, a “settlement agreement” of a lawsuit involving a public office is a public record. The school district acknowledged that had Miller sued the district and the district settled the case with Miller, any copies of the settlement would be a public record.

However, Lakota argued that while documents that describe a final settlement are public, communications that exchange information to reach a settlement are not.

Supreme Court Analyzed Records Law
The Court noted that it addressed the issue of proposed settlements in its 2002 State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dupuis decision and ruled those offers are public records. Lakota acknowledged the Dupuis decision but maintained that the settlement discussions were protected by a 2003 Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which was issued after Dupuis. The Sixth Circuit ruled discussions made to reach a settlement are protected and not subject to disclosure.

Lakota argued the Sixth Circuit decision should be considered federal law and that under the Public Records Act, communications protected under federal law do not need to be disclosed.

The Court rejected Lakota’s argument, noting that in 2006, it rejected the argument that federal law authorizes it to withhold settlement discussions by state and local public bodies. The Court ordered the district to turn over the letter to Wells.

The Court also noted that in September 2023, seven months after Wells filed her lawsuit, the district provided an updated version of the legal invoices that complied with the public records law. In this set, only the description of the work and the bank account information were redacted. The other portions regarding the attorneys who worked on the matters, their pay rates, and hours worked were revealed.

Court Sanctioned District for Violations
Wells sought statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees, which are allowed by the Public Records Act when a public office violates the law. The maximum damages allowed by law for failing to promptly fulfill a public records request is $1,000 for each request. Since Lakota did not turn over the demand letter and delayed delivery of the required version of the legal invoices, the Court awarded Wells the maximum, totaling $2,000.

Regarding attorney fees, the opinion noted a court can award attorney fees in a public records request. The law allows a court to withhold attorney fees if “a well-informed person responsible for the records would reasonably believe” the public records laws did not require disclosure. The Court found that Lakota’s argument based on a 2003 federal court decision was unreasonable, and the district should have known it was obligated to turn over the letter.

For these reasons, the Court awarded Wells attorney fees and required her to submit an itemized fee application. The Court noted that because Lakota belatedly provided Wells with the proper legal invoices, she was not entitled to attorney fees unless she could demonstrate the district acted in bad faith.

The opinion noted that the Court has previously stated that bad faith in the context of public records requests includes acting with a dishonest purpose, conscious wrongdoing, or intending to mislead another. Wells argued the district acted in bad faith by withholding the invoices. She said they redacted the key information because she was critical of the board’s investigation into allegations involving Miller.

The Court did not award attorney fees related to the invoices. The opinion stated that Wells did not provide evidence that her criticism was the reason for the redactions and that the district eventually gave her copies of invoices that redacted only information the public records law allows to remain undisclosed.

“Moreover, although Lakota plainly exercised bad judgment in its handling of the legal invoices, bad judgment is not equivalent to bad faith,” the Court concluded.

2023-0190. State ex rel. Wells v. Lakota Local Schools Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3316.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.