The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a significant public records dispute involving Attorney General Dave Yost and the Center for Media and Democracy. The case centers on Yost's refusal to provide records related to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and its fundraising arm, a request stemming from a five-year-old legal battle.
The Center for Media and Democracy seeks documents from RAGA, a non-profit group, regarding its opposition to EPA clean air regulations and its role in organizing the January 6th, 2021, pro-Trump march on the Capitol. Crucially, the center is challenging Yost's office's resistance to a magistrate's order for a deposition.
Ohio Solicitor General Michael Hendershot argued that a ruling in favor of the center could open a floodgate of similar lawsuits, essentially weaponizing public records requests against officials. He warned of potential repercussions for the state's public records law, asserting a precedent for such a deposition could lead to "lawfare."
The initial request for records, made in March 2020, included RAGA's winter meeting materials. Yost's office initially claimed no relevant records existed or that the sought information wasn't a record. A lower court ordered Yost's office to respond to questions and produce documents, aiming to determine if the communications were conducted on state time or involved official duties.
Yost appealed, arguing the process could potentially encompass communications of other Republican attorneys general, and personal/campaign emails of his staff, potentially encompassing irrelevant material unrelated to RAGA or its fundraising arm.
Supreme Court justices questioned the scope of the lower court's order and whether it was excessively demanding. Justice Brunner raised concerns about officials potentially circumventing public records laws through private communications.
The Center for Media and Democracy's attorney, Jeffrey Vardaro, countered that the order only allows the magistrate to review specific documents, not the center or the public at large. He emphasized that the lawsuit aims to uphold Ohio's public records law, not harass or embarrass the Attorney General. He cautioned against precedents that would allow officials to unilaterally classify information as non-public, hindering transparency.
The court's decision will have substantial implications for transparency in the state's public record laws and how officials navigate requests for information.
