Judge Dale A. Crawford
DECISION AND ENTRY
{¶1} Requester Geoffrey C. Mitchell objects to a special master's report and recommendation (R&R) issued on November 3, 2020 in this public-records dispute.
I. Background
{¶2} On December 23, 2019, Geoffrey C. Mitchell brought a lawsuit against respondent Ohio Ethics Commission (Commission) in which he alleged a denial of access to public records. The public records sought deal with the Board of Trustees of Toledo University conflict of interest records and investigation filed at the Ohio Ethics Commission. The Court appointed a special master who referred the case to mediation. After mediation failed to successfully resolve all disputed issues between the parties, the Commission moved to dismiss the action as moot.
{¶3} On November 3, 2020, the special master issued a R&R wherein he recommended denying the motion to dismiss. (R&R, 4.) The special master further recommended: "Upon consideration of the pleadings, attachments, and responsive records filed under seal, I recommend the court find that the claim is moot as to the unredacted portions of the records provided by the OEC [Ohio Ethics Commission] before and during litigation. I further recommend the court issue an order denying requester's claim for disclosure of additional information from the redacted portions of the records. I recommend that costs be assessed to requester." (R&R, 8.)
{¶4} On November 12, 2020, Mitchell filed written objections to the R&R. Mitchell served a copy of his objections "via email and court service," according to a proof of service accompanying Mitchell's filing. On November 23, 2020, the Commission filed a response in opposition to Mitchell's objections. The Commission, through its counsel, served a copy of its response using the Court's electronic filing system and email, according to a certificate of service accompanying the Commission's response.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶5} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) governs objections to a special master's R&R. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party "may object to the report and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk and sending a copy to the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. * * * If either party timely objects, the other party may file with the clerk a response within seven business days after receiving the objection and send a copy of the response to the objecting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The court, within seven business days after the response to the objection is filed, shall issue a final order that adopts, modifies, or rejects the report and recommendation."
{¶6} Mitchell has timely filed his objections to the special master's R&R; however, Mitchell has failed to comply with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2)'s requirement to serve a copy of his written objections by certified mail, return receipt requested. Mitchell's objections therefore are procedurally deficient under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2).
{¶7} The Commission has timely filed a response in opposition to Mitchell's objections; however, the Commission has failed to comply with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2)'s requirement to serve a copy of its written response by certified mail, return receipt requested. The Commission's response therefore is procedurally deficient under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2).
{¶8} Notwithstanding the procedural deficiencies of the parties' filings, the Court will consider the parties' filings in the interest of justice.
{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), any objection to a report and recommendation "shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the objection." Mitchell presents the following objections:
1. "Respondent's trivialization of and failure to ascertain the trustee's conflicts of interest flies in the face of "universal and long-established prohibitions" of such conflicts of interest which are deeply rooted within our constitutional rule of law and which "date back to the founding." Nevada Comm. on Ethics v. Carrigan ,
564 U.S. 117 (2011)."
2. "Here, the university trustees always had and still have serious and extensive conflicts between their fiduciary duties to the university and their pecuniary interests in the public contractee which Respondent trivialized and dismissed."
3. "A newly filed federal antitrust action against the previously-adjudicated violator asserts a "13-year campaign to neutralize competition" which includes the destruction of UTMC. That UTMC destruction resulted from the UT trustees' conflicts of interest at issue herein."
4. In a case where the Court's ruling hinges upon the meaning of a single statutory word, "commission," the Court should similarly examine the meaning of the very next word in the sentence, "determines," and find that Respondent failed in its R.C. 102.02(B) duty to determine the university trustees' conflicts of interest." (Footnote omitted.)
5. "Dispute of Fact - Requestor vigorously denies the Special Master's factual characterization that he 'does not dispute that the commission made determinations.'"
{¶10} Because Mitchell's objections are interrelated, the Court shall address some of the objections together.
{¶11} Mitchell's complaint raises this issue: whether the Commission violated R.C. 149.43(B) by denying Mitchell access to public records—not whether the Commission did or, did not, ascertain purported conflicts of interests by trustees of the University of Toledo. The Court concludes that Mitchell's first and second objections, which pertain to alleged conflicts of interest by university trustees, will be overruled.
{¶12} Mitchell's third objection fails to call attention to any error in the special master's report and recommendation. The Court concludes that the third objection will be overruled.
{¶13} Mitchell's fourth objection challenges the special master's summarization and interpretation of R.C. 102(B). Upon independent review, the Court finds that the special master's summary and interpretation of R.C. 102(B) does not constitute error. The Court concludes that the fourth objection will be overruled.
{¶14} Mitchell's fifth objection disputes the special master's assertion that requester "does not dispute that the commission made determinations." Mitchell contends: "Respondent did not determine the truth of the trustees' conflicts of interest. Respondent's process, which it called determination, was bogus, ineffective, and trivializing. Respondent did not determine the facts of the trustees' conflicts of interest. Respondent's failure to identify the trustees' very real conflicts of interest creates a presumption that it made no 'determination' at all. Requestor disputes that Respondent made any meaningful or legal 'determination' under the statute." Upon independent review, the Court finds that Mitchell's fifth objection is unpersuasive. The Court concludes that the fifth objection will be overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶15} The Court OVERRULES Mitchell's written objections of November 12, 2020. The Court adopts the special master's R&R of November 3, 2020, including the special master's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Judgment is rendered in favor of the Commission. Court costs are assessed against Mitchell. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
/s/_________
DALE A CRAWFORD
Judge Filed December 4, 2020
Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/12/21