Cummins v. Ohio Secy. of State

[Cite as Cummins v. Ohio Secy. of State, 2026-Ohio-3867.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

PATRICK DEAN CUMMINS

Requester

v.

OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE

Respondent

Case No. 2026-00200PQ Special Master Sarah Pierce

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

{¶1} This matter is before me for a report and recommendation. R.C. 2743.75(F). I recommend that the court (1) dismiss requester's complaint pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2) and 2743.75(D)(2), (2) deny all remaining motions as moot, and (3) order requester to bear the costs of this case.

I. Background A. The public-records request {¶2} On January 12, 2026, Requester Patrick Cummins submitted a public-records request to Respondent Ohio Secretary of State. Complaint, filed Mar. 10, 2026, p. 3-4; see also Resp. Evidence, filed Jun. 25, 2026, p. 4 ¶ 3-5 (Aff. Chief Legal Counsel). The request asked for "inspection and/or copies of records regarding the electronic data transfer and registration interface between the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) and the Ohio Secretary of State's Statewide Voter Registration Database (SWVRD)." Compl., p. 3-4. The request went on to specify four categories of requested records:

1. Software/Source Code: Any and all source code, scripts, or database queries utilized to transmit, validate, or process voter registration data collected at BMV offices for inclusion in the Statewide Voter Registration Database. 2. Specifications, data dictionaries, API documentation, or interface control documents (ICDs) that describe the logic, fields, and validation rules used to process BMV voter registration data. 3. Vendor Contracts: A copy of the current contract, scope of work, or licensing

1

agreement with the vendor responsible for maintaining the SWVRD, specifically regarding the "Automatic Voter Registration" or BMV data interface components. 4. User Manuals/Standard Operating Procedures:

Any administrative manuals or internal guidance documents provided to IT staff or election officials describing how BMV interactions are processed, flagged, or rejected within the software system.

Id.

{¶3} On January 29, 2026, Requester and Respondent spoke on the phone regarding the request. Resp. Ev., p. 5 ¶ 10-11. The Respondent informed Requester that it did not have many of the items he requested. Id. On February 4, 2026, Respondent emailed Requester this same information. Id., p. 5 ¶ 11-14; see also id. at p. 21-23.

{¶4} On February 9, 2026, Respondent sent additional information to Requester. Resp. Ev., p. 5 ¶ 15. Respondent provided a copy of a relevant memorandum of understanding between Respondent and the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Id., p. 28-

29. Respondent also notified Requester that the requested source code was either not maintained by the Respondent or was subject to public-records exceptions. Id.

{¶5} On February 17, 2026, Respondent sent additional information regarding Requester's own voting registration history. Resp. Ev., p. 5 ¶ 15; see also Compl., p. 9-

10. Respondent also confirmed that it would not provide source code, referring Requester to its prior responses. Id.

B. Procedural history {¶6} This matter was referred to mediation. Mediation did not resolve the case, and a schedule was set for both parties to file evidence and memoranda supporting their positions. That schedule has run its course, making this case ripe for decision. Order Terminating Mediation, entered Jun. 10, 2026.

II. Analysis A. Requester's complaint should be dismissed pursuant to R.C.

149.43(C).

{¶7} Effective April 9, 2025, the Public Records Act was amended to include new requirements for initiating a public-records action in court. See 2024 Sub.H.B. No. 265; R.C. 149.43(C)(1), (2). Before filing a public-records lawsuit, a person must first "serve

2

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint, on a form prescribed by the clerk of the court of claims" on the public office. R.C. 149.43(C)(1). Next, the person must wait three business days before filing the complaint in court. R.C. 149.43(C)(1). Finally, the person is required to file with the court "a written affirmation" that confirms 1) the person "properly transmitted" the preliminary complaint to the public office, 2) the alleged public-records violation has not been resolved, and 3) the preliminary complaint was transmitted at least three business days before filing in court. R.C. 149.43(C)(2).

{¶8} In this case, Requester filed the required affirmation with his complaint. See Compl., p. 1. Respondent has introduced evidence, however, that Requester did not serve a preliminary complaint in accordance with Civil Rule 4, et seq. Resp. Ev., p. 5 ¶ 9. On January 29, 2026, Requester emailed a "draft Court of Claims public records complaint form" to Respondent and noted that a copy was "also being mailed to the Ohio Secretary of State's Office." Id.; see also id., p. 8. Requester does not contest this evidence. See Compl., p. 1, 7; Req. Evidence, filed Jun. 26. 2026, p. 1.

{¶9} Accordingly, Requester did not serve his preliminary complaint as required by R.C. 149.43(C)(1). "R.C. 149.43(C)(1) requires the preliminary complaint to be served pursuant to Civ.R. 4. Service under Civ.R. 4 may be achieved through the methods set forth in Civ.R. 4.1 et seq." State ex rel. Claypool v. Cty. of Geauga, 2025-Ohio-5863, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.). Transmission by email or regular mail is not contemplated by these rules. Civ.R. 4.1. Requester therefore also did not "properly transmit[]" his preliminary complaint to Respondent and could not affirm as much. Claypool, 2025-Ohio-5863, ¶ 16. This court has dismissed public-records complaints on these grounds. See, e.g., Souare v. Dept. of Dev. Disabilities, 2026-Ohio-919, ¶ 10-13, adopted Ct. of Cl. 2025-00966PQ (Mar. 10,

2026).

{¶10} I therefore recommend that the court dismiss Requester's complaint pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2). See R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) (court may dismiss a public- records complaint at any time upon special master's recommendation).

B. Costs. {¶11} Revised Code 2743.75(F)(3)(b) provides that the court shall award a requester their filing fee and "any other costs associated with the action" if it finds a violation of the Public Records Act. I do not find a violation of the Public Records Act due

3

to the threshold issue presented by R.C. 149.43(C). I therefore recommend that Requester bear the costs of this case.

III. Conclusion {¶12} Based on the above considerations, I recommend that the court:

1) Dismiss requester's complaint pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2) and 2743.75(D)(2);

2) Deny all remaining motions as moot; and

3) Order requester to bear the costs of this case.

{¶13} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).

SARAH PIERCE

Special Master

Filed August 5, 2026 Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/1/26

4