In February 2023, a state appeals court directed the Ohio Attorney General’s Office to provide documents in response to a public records request about communications with two national organizations. The court also ordered the deposition of Attorney General Dave Yost.

The public records request was made in March 2020 by an investigative group, which sought records of Yost’s and his office’s interactions with the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). The request also included records related to the attorney general’s participation in a 2020 RAGA winter meeting.

The attorney general appealed the court orders to the Ohio Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in the case next week.

Attorney General’s Office Determines It Has No Relevant Records
The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) made the records request, which was limited to the timeframe between February 2019 and the office’s response. The attorney general’s office answered that it had no records responsive to the center’s request or the information wasn’t a record, as defined in the Ohio Public Records Act. CMD asked the Tenth District Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus ordering the office to produce the requested public records.

The Tenth District ordered discovery in the case. The attorney general provided a document retention schedule and the names of people who ran the searches for the records. Certain employees of the office were deposed. Yost didn’t appear for his deposition. On the other requests for records, the office objected.

A Tenth District magistrate ordered the attorney general’s office to respond to several interrogatories. The magistrate also directed that the office produce documents to CMD on certain requests and provide other documents to the court first for in camera review. The magistrate overruled CMD’s other requests. The court found that its discovery orders would help answer whether the materials are or are not records. The magistrate also stated that Yost must appear for a deposition.

The attorney general’s office appealed the decisions to the Supreme Court, which must hear the case.

State Contends Discovery Orders Are Out of Proportion and Irrelevant to Case
Court rules for civil cases require discovery requests to be relevant to the legal claim and proportional to the case needs. The attorney general argues neither is true here. The order to search for and produce documents regarding letters, amicus curiae briefs, or meetings in which another Republican attorney general’s office participated would reach the personal and campaign email accounts of the Ohio office’s staff – actions out of proportion to the case needs, the attorney general contends. The order would also sweep in irrelevant information having nothing to do with RAGA or RLDF – such as communications about multistate efforts in lawsuits against an e-cigarette maker and Google, the attorney general asserts.

The office also argues discovery of documents and deposing the attorney general would give CMD improper access to records and information that it wouldn’t obtain if materials deemed public records were released. Nor is this case an extraordinary circumstance in which the deposition of a high-ranking government official is allowed to be ordered, the office contends.

Nineteen other states jointly submitted an amicus brief supporting the Ohio attorney general’s position. Led by Utah’s attorney general, the states object to the ordered deposition of Yost. In their view, the Tenth District never found the deposition was necessary based on extraordinary circumstances. If adopted in other states, the decision would interfere with the ability of other public officials to carry out their duties, the brief argues. The other states joining the brief are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

Investigative Group Argues Analysis Needed on Whether Records Document AG Functions
CMD counters that discovery and the deposition are necessary when the attorney general’s office claims the requested records don’t document the office’s public functions.

CMD argues that accepting only the documents a public office voluntarily provides or simply taking the word of the public office’s staff is not how public records cases should be handled. Available evidence and information from the attorney general’s staff indicate that public records have been withheld, CMD maintains. It argues the evidence led the Tenth District to order discovery to determine whether the office’s interactions with RAGA and RLDF are related to the functions of the public office and must be released. CMD notes that RAGA and RLDF have said they play a role in policy decisions made by attorneys general across the country. The issue in this case is whether the public has the right to documents that illuminate the relationship between the interest groups and a state attorney general, CMD contends. Regarding the deposition, CMD maintains that Yost is the only person who can speak to the content of his emails and his personal devices.

In support of CMD’s arguments, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, Marshall Project, and Ohio NOW Education and Legal Fund submitted a joint amicus brief. Their brief argues that a Supreme Court decision allowing public officials to use “their own unfettered discretion” to determine what qualifies as a public record would undermine the purpose of the Public Records Act. Such a ruling would eliminate the courts’ independent review of materials and improperly empower public officials, who may want to conceal records, to alone decide whether records are public and whether to disclose them.

Watch Oral Arguments Online
The Supreme Court will hear eight cases during oral arguments next week. Four cases will be heard on Jan. 7. The Court will consider four more, including SER Center for Media and Democracy v. Yost, on Jan. 8. Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. They will be streamed live online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov and on the Ohio Channel, where they are archived.

Detailed case previews from the Office of Public Information are available by clicking on the case names throughout the article or through the list of cases in the sidebar.

Tuesday, Jan. 7
Solar Farm Approval
The Ohio Power Siting Board approved a proposed solar farm with a total generating capacity of 350 megawatts. The project would be located on 2,600 acres of private land in Hartford and Bennington townships, near the village of Hartford in Licking County. An organization of neighboring property owners contends the board failed to follow its own rules when granting the company permission to construct and operate the facility. In In re Application of Harvey Solar I, the Court will consider whether the siting board met the legal requirements to approve the project.

Firearm Sentences
A Cuyahoga County court sentenced a woman to two years of community control for illegally having a weapon and one year in prison for a related firearm specification. In State v. Logan, the prosecutor argues state law requires courts to impose prison time for both the specification and the felony connected to the specification. The community control sanction wasn’t an option, the prosecutor maintains. The offender asserts that the statute gives courts discretion to decide whether to impose prison time for the felony underlying the firearm specification.

Proper Lawsuit Service
An accident during a SWAT team training led to a lawsuit filed by one deputy against another in 2012. The original lawsuit was sent to the defendant’s home in Cuyahoga Falls, but he later moved to Canal Fulton and informed the other side’s legal team. After a series of appeals on the issue of immunity, the lawsuit returned to trial court in 2018. When the deputy refiled the case in 2019, he sent it to the defendant’s earlier address, not the new one. However, the defendant’s father retrieved the mail in Cuyahoga Falls and delivered the lawsuit by hand to his son. In Hunt v. Alderman, the Court will review whether the defendant’s due process rights were violated because the lawsuit wasn’t served to him at his new address.

Mineral Rights
In 1953, a couple sold 11 parcels of land in Harrison County but reserved the rights to “coal … and other minerals” below the property. A nonprofit organization currently owns the land and objected when the couple’s heirs filed a claim to the property’s oil and gas rights. In Faith Ranch v. PNC Bank, the heirs contend that the common meaning of “minerals” includes oil and gas. The current landowner responds that the couple’s reservation of rights in the deed uses words such as “mine,” “mining,” and “vein.” Those words make it clear that the couple only intended to hold onto the coal rights, the landowner asserts.

Wednesday, Jan. 8
Solar Facility Approval
A company has proposed a solar-powered electric generation facility on 712 acres of private property in Washington Township, Hancock County. The solar farm, near the village of Arcadia, is projected to generate about 130 megawatts of power. The project received the approval of the Oho Power Siting Board but has drawn opposition from neighboring property owners. In In re Application of South Branch Solar, the Court will determine whether the siting board ensured that the company met all the requirements to construct and operate the facility.

Arbitration Mandates
A couple hired a construction company in 2020 to build a home on their Medina County property. Three years later, the couple sued because the home hadn’t been completed. Based on the contract, the trial court ordered arbitration of the dispute. State law requires that a trial court “shall hear the parties ” in disagreements over a written agreement mandating arbitration. In Snyder v. Old World Classics, the company contests the appeals court ruling that the trial court must hold an oral hearing before moving the case to arbitration. The couple agrees with the company, noting they also don’t think an oral hearing is required. In addition, the couple maintains that the arbitration provision was voided because the company made misrepresentations about past disputes.

Commercial Leases
Ashland Oil operates 25 Speedway gas stations in Ohio and four other states. In a complex financial arrangement, Ashland leased the properties from a group of investors for 22 years. Ashland is obligated to buy the properties and eventually turn them over to Speedway. When Ashland failed to send a lease renewal notice on time, the investors terminated the leases. Under the lease terms, the investors were allowed to take ownership of the Speedways. A trial court ruled that the late notice didn’t justify ending the leases and allowed Ashland to continue renting the property. In Ashland Global Holdings v. SuperAsh Remainderman, the Court will consider whether the “honest mistake doctrine” can contradict a lease term and allow the tenant to remain.