Cincinnati Enquirer v. Butler Cty. Sheriff's Office

[Cite as Cincinnati Enquirer v. Butler Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2026-Ohio-490.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} On May 2, 2025, this Court issued a Decision and Entry overruling Respondent's (BCSO) objection to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation (R&R), adopted the R&R as its own, ordered BCSO to provide certain records to Requester (the Enquirer), assessed court costs to BCSO, and determined that the Enquirer was entitled to recover its filing fee and costs from BCSO. (Decision and Entry, May 2, 2025.)

{¶2} On October 6, 2025, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed this Court's judgment and remanded this matter to this Court for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with that decision. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Butler Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2025-Ohio-4621, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.).

{¶3} The appellate court stated:

For the reasons outlined above, and finding merit to BCSO's single assignment of error, we reverse the Court of Claims' decision to adopt a special master's report and recommendation ordering the BCSO to create and provide to the Enquirer a call log setting forth a list of calls that Wagner made during the nearly six years in which he was an inmate incarcerated at the Butler County Jail awaiting trial. This is because, as explained more fully above, the requested call log does not serve to document "the

THE CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, A

DIVISION OF GP MEDIA, INC

Requester

v.

BUTLER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Respondent

Case No. 2024-00906PQ Judge Lisa L. Sadler