Background
Goffredo Di Fiore, proceeding pro se, received a traffic citation from the Shaker Heights Police Department on January 23, 2025 for driving 40 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h. zone. On Monday, January 27, 2025, Di Fiore visited the Department and requested copies of the citation, bodycam and dashcam footage, and speed-measuring device calibration records under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43). He alleges the physical citation was retrieved in his presence but the records supervisor denied his request for immediate inspection.
Di Fiore returned on January 28 and again on February 3, 2025. The City provided all requested documents, unredacted, on February 3 — four business days after the initial request. Di Fiore then filed a pro se complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims alleging the City violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by failing to provide prompt access. The Court of Claims granted the City’s motion to dismiss, finding the delay was reasonable. Di Fiore appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed the dismissal. The court applied the standard set forth in State ex rel. Consumer News Servs., Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn., holding that a public office must provide records within a reasonable period of time, and that what constitutes “reasonable” depends on the circumstances of each case. The court found that a four-business-day turnaround for a traffic citation and related records was reasonable, particularly given the nature and volume of the records requested — which included bodycam footage, dashcam footage, and calibration records in addition to the citation itself.
Di Fiore argued that because he was the subject of the record (negating privacy concerns) and no redactions were ultimately made, the delay was per se unreasonable. The court rejected this argument, holding that the absence of redactions does not retroactively render a response time unreasonable when the public office needed to review the records for potential exemptions before release.
Key Takeaways
- A four-business-day delay in responding to a public records request is not per se unreasonable under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
- The absence of ultimate redactions does not make the public office’s review time unreasonable; the office is entitled to review records for potential exemptions before producing them.
- Courts evaluate the reasonableness of response time based on the totality of circumstances, including the number and nature of records requested.
Why It Matters
For Ohio practitioners advising public offices or representing requesters under the Public Records Act, this decision provides a practical benchmark: a response within four business days for a multi-record request — even where no redactions are needed — falls within the zone of reasonableness. The opinion also confirms that requesters cannot create a per se unreasonableness standard simply because they are the subject of the requested records. Public offices retain the right to conduct a meaningful review of records before production, even when the ultimate determination is that no exemptions apply.