Ohio Supreme Court to Rule on Attorney General’s Public Records Case

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next week in a dispute over a public records request involving Attorney General Dave Yost. The case stems from a 2020 request by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) seeking records of Yost’s communications with the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF).

CMD argues that these records could shed light on the extent of outside influence on Yost’s office. The attorney general’s office contends it has no records responsive to the request and has fought legal efforts to compel additional searches and depositions.

Appeals Court Ordered Records Disclosure

The case took a significant turn in February 2023, when a state appeals court ordered Yost’s office to produce documents and respond to interrogatories regarding the request. The court also mandated that Yost sit for a deposition, a decision his office has challenged.

CMD initially sought records dating from February 2019 onward, focusing on interactions between the attorney general’s office and the two organizations. Yost’s office responded that it found no relevant documents or that certain materials did not qualify as public records under Ohio law.

In response, CMD filed a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, seeking to compel production of the records. The court ruled that discovery, including a deposition of Yost, was necessary to determine whether the requested materials were public records.

Attorney General’s Office Argues Against Discovery

Yost’s office has appealed the discovery orders to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that the Tenth District’s decision exceeds the scope of public records law. The office contends that requiring searches of personal and campaign email accounts is overly broad and irrelevant to the case.

The attorney general also argues that allowing CMD to depose him would set a dangerous precedent. His office asserts that high-ranking officials should not be subjected to depositions without extraordinary circumstances, which it claims do not exist in this case.

Yost’s office further argues that the discovery process could result in the disclosure of confidential information unrelated to RAGA or RLDF, such as details about multistate lawsuits involving his office.

National Support and Opposition

The case has drawn national attention. Nineteen other states, led by Utah, have filed an amicus brief in support of Yost, warning that forcing attorney generals to testify in such cases could interfere with their official duties. These states argue that the lower court failed to justify its decision to depose Yost and that the ruling could have broad implications for public officials nationwide.

On the other side, CMD has received support from the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Marshall Project, and the Ohio NOW Education and Legal Fund. Their joint brief argues that public officials should not have sole discretion to determine what constitutes a public record, as this could undermine government transparency.

Supreme Court Hearing Set for Next Week

The Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case on Jan. 8. The outcome could have significant implications for public records law and the ability of watchdog groups to scrutinize government officials’ interactions with outside organizations.

Observers from across the country will be watching closely, as the court’s decision could influence how similar cases are handled in other states.