Ohio Supreme Court to review public records dispute in case against Attorney General Dave Yost

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court has weighed in on a contentious public records case involving the Ohio Attorney General and a media watchdog group. The case, titled State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost (2024-Ohio-2786), centers on a request for documents that the Attorney General’s office had initially refused to release.

Background:
David Armiak and the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) had requested documents from the Ohio Attorney General’s office related to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). The Attorney General, Dave Yost, argued that these documents did not qualify as public records under Ohio law and thus did not need to be disclosed.

In response, Armiak filed a mandamus action—a legal procedure to compel the Attorney General to produce the documents. The Tenth District Court of Appeals, which handled the case initially, allowed Armiak to conduct extensive discovery. This included deposing the Attorney General and seeking a broad range of documents and answers to questions.

Dispute and Ruling:
The Attorney General sought a protective order to limit the discovery process, claiming it was excessively burdensome and interfered with his constitutional duties. However, the Tenth District Court denied this request, allowing the discovery to proceed.

The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether the discovery order could be appealed. The court determined that the order was indeed appealable as it addressed a provisional remedy under Ohio law. This ruling means that the dispute over discovery was significant enough to warrant immediate review, rather than waiting until the final judgment in the case.

Outcome:
The Supreme Court of Ohio decided not to dismiss the appeal and scheduled the matter for oral argument. This decision underscores the importance of the case in determining the scope of public records and the balance between governmental transparency and administrative burden.

As the case moves forward, it will likely set important precedents for how public records requests are handled in Ohio, particularly concerning the extent of documents that must be disclosed by state officials.