COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in a pivotal public records case involving Attorney General Dave Yost and the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). At the heart of the dispute is a 2020 records request from CMD, seeking communications between Yost’s office and two prominent conservative organizations: the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). CMD asserts that these records could provide insight into the influence of these groups on public policy.
The Basis of the Case
CMD’s original request encompassed communications dating from February 2019 to early 2020, including information about Yost’s attendance at a RAGA winter meeting. The attorney general’s office responded that it either did not possess the requested records or that the materials in question did not qualify as “public records” under Ohio law.
When CMD pursued legal action, the Tenth District Court of Appeals ordered Yost’s office to produce certain documents and to allow depositions, including one involving Yost himself. Yost has since challenged these rulings, contending that the orders are overly broad and irrelevant, arguing they risk exposing unrelated materials, including campaign and personal communications. He further asserts that requiring depositions of high-ranking officials like himself could establish a harmful precedent.
National Attention and Broader Stakes
The case has drawn attention nationwide, with 19 states filing an amicus brief in support of Yost. These states argue that compelling senior public officials to sit for depositions without extraordinary circumstances could disrupt governance. They emphasize that such measures should only be applied sparingly to prevent hindering officials’ ability to perform their duties effectively.
CMD’s Position on Transparency
CMD maintains that the requested discovery is vital to determine whether Yost’s office has improperly withheld records. The group argues that the public deserves to know how state officials interact with influential organizations, particularly those that may shape public policy. Transparency advocates, including the League of Women Voters of Ohio and the Marshall Project, have filed briefs supporting CMD. They caution that allowing officials to define the scope of public records unilaterally could weaken transparency laws and undermine public accountability.
Broader Implications for Public Records Law
This case has significant implications for how public records disputes and related discovery orders will be handled in the future. Advocates for open government warn that siding with Yost could grant public officials excessive latitude to withhold information, undermining the transparency essential to a democratic system.
