Markup v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

[Cite as Markup v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2023-Ohio-1170.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
THE MARKUP, et al. Case No. 2022-00279PQ
Requesters Judge Patrick E. Sheeran
v. JUDGMENT ENTRY
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND
FAMILY SERVICES
Respondent
{¶1} On March 28, 2022, The Markup, through Todd Feathers, filed a public-
records complaint against Respondent Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services
(ODFJS) “for documents related to the agency’s contract with Google and Carahsoft for
an unemployment insurance fraud prediction system.” The Markup asserted that it had
asked ODJFS “for five different, specific records.” The Markup further asserted that it
asked ODJFS to “provide [it] with unredacted versions of the responsive records.”
{¶2} ODJS responded to the complaint, urging that it “[had] provided all responsive
records, and all redactions made to those records are appropriate as they contained
infrastructure or security records or are trade secrets."
{¶3} On February 7, 2023, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R) in this case. The Special Master “finds that the data factors, flags, weights, and
thresholds entered into the Dashboard software meet the definition of ‘infrastructure
records.’ Review of the redacted information in camera shows that for the most part
ODJFS has redacted material that falls squarely within the exemption as listed in the
privilege log. However, ODJFS was overinclusive in redacting some chapter titles, two
sentences that merely contain the word ‘configuration,’ and certain other innocuous text.”
(R&R, 8.)
{¶4} The Special Master further “finds that none of the redacted weekly report
information, other than the listed flags, disclose a security record on its face.” (R&R, 12.)
Case No. 2022-00279PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY
The Special Master “concludes that ODJFS has met its burden to prove that some but
not all of the data referenced as security records in the privilege log falls squarely under
the exception for “information directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a
public office against attack, interference, or sabotage,” as identified in the tables at the
end of [the Report and Recommendation].” (R&R, 12.) The Special Master also “finds
that ODJFS has failed to meet its burden to prove that any of the withheld records falls
squarely within the trade secret exemption.” (R&R, 14.)
{¶5} In the Report and Recommendation, the Special Master prepared Exemption
Tables with a Legend. The Special Master “recommends the court order respondent to
provide requester with copies of the records and portions of records identified in the
Exemption Tables in bold underline as not falling under a proven exemption. It is
recommended that costs be assessed to respondent.” (R&R, 16.)
{¶6} Neither party has timely objected to the Report and Recommendation, as
permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely
objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then this Court is required to
“promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it
determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report
and recommendation.”
{¶7} Upon review, the Court determines that there is no error of law or other defect
evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopts the Report
and Recommendation. The Court orders ODJFS to provide The Markup with copies of
the records and portions of records as identified in the Exemption Tables in bold
underline, as stated in the Report and Recommendation. Because ODJFS has denied
The Markup access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B), The Markup is entitled
to recover from ODJFS the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other
costs associated with the action that are incurred by The Markup, excepting attorney fees.
Court costs are assessed against ODJFS. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice
of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
Case No. 2022-00279PQ -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY
PATRICK E. SHEERAN
Judge
Filed March 17, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 4/7/23