Ohio Supreme Court Orders Review in Public Records Case

Court Finds Discovery Scope Too Broad in Yost Records Case

The Ohio Supreme Court ordered a lower appeals court to reconsider discovery limits in a public records lawsuit. The case involves Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and his office. A government watchdog group sought records about his activities with national organizations. The 6-1 decision ruled the appeals court went too far in ordering document production.

David Armiak, research director for the Center for Media and Democracy, requested public records. He wanted information about Yost’s involvement with two groups. These included the Republican Attorneys General Association and the Rule of Law Defense Fund. He also sought details about Yost’s attendance at a 2020 winter meeting.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals initially ordered extensive discovery. Yost had to produce various documents and respond to interrogatories. The appeals court also required him to sit for a two-hour deposition. The Supreme Court found this approach exceeded proper legal boundaries.

Majority Opinion Sets Limits on Information Exchange

Justice Patrick F. Fischer wrote the majority opinion for the high court. He explained that discovery orders must limit information exchange carefully. Courts can only request what is “relevant and proportional” under Ohio civil procedure rules. The Tenth District failed to apply this standard properly.

In public records cases, the relevant and proportional standard has specific requirements. Discovery must focus on whether requested records qualify as public records. It must also address the attorney general’s defenses about record classification. The Tenth District directed production of information beyond these limited issues, Fischer stated. He wrote that the appeals court “placed the proverbial cart before the horse.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy joined the majority opinion. Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan also concurred. The Court vacated the Tenth District’s discovery order entirely.

Dissenting Justice Objects to Majority Approach

Justice Jennifer Brunner issued a dissenting opinion. She was the sole justice to disagree with the majority. Brunner argued the majority opinion failed to provide adequate guidance. The full text of her dissent was not included in available court documents.

The ruling did not adequately justify why Yost should face deposition questioning. The Supreme Court found the appeals court overstepped its authority. It ordered a complete reevaluation of what discovery should be permitted. The case now returns to the appeals court for reconsideration with stricter limits.

Court Overturns Permit for Massive Solar Farm Project

In a separate ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned a permit for a large solar energy project. State officials had previously approved the 6,000-acre industrial-scale solar farm. The facility would have been located in Madison County between Columbus and Dayton.

A fractured majority of Republican justices sided with local officials. They challenged Oak Run Solar, a project developed by Savion. Savion is a subsidiary of oil giant Shell. The ruling represents a significant setback for the renewable energy facility. However, it does not necessarily deliver a fatal blow to the project.

Missing Substation Renderings Trigger Reversal

Four justices formed the majority in the Oak Run case. They dismissed most alleged shortfalls in the solar farm’s application. Concerns about aesthetics, wildlife, and hydrology were not sufficient for reversal. However, they found a critical flaw in the application materials.

The project application to the Ohio Power Siting Board lacked required visual documentation. Developers failed to include project renderings of substations from public viewpoints. Justice Pat Fischer wrote the majority opinion. He stated the developers did not provide photographic simulations or sketches showing substations.

The substations appear to be among the project’s tallest features. Without proper visual representations from public vantage points, Oak Run failed to meet regulatory requirements. The Court reversed the permit issuance entirely. It ordered the OPSB to “more thoroughly address” the project’s visual impacts.

Chief Justice Seeks Even Stricter Standards

Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy wanted the Court to go further. She sided with local governments on additional concerns. Kennedy said developers failed to provide adequate water quality information. She also cited insufficient fire safety data about the operation.

In a partial concurrence opinion, she called the Court’s decision “arbitrary and unreasonable.” Kennedy believed the majority should have addressed more substantive application deficiencies. Her opinion suggested stricter oversight of large-scale renewable energy projects.

Dissenting Justice Defends Original Permit

Justice Jennifer Brunner, the lone Democrat on the court, dissented again. She argued that while developers omitted certain specific renderings, the OPSB still conducted thorough review. The Power Siting Board adequately considered the viewshed impacts, she wrote. The massive project area received sufficient regulatory scrutiny despite missing documentation.

The ruling adds to a series of legal roadblocks facing solar developers in Ohio. Over recent years, Ohio regulators have rejected permits for multiple utility-scale solar farms. The Supreme Court has previously rejected lawsuits challenging several OPSB-granted permits. It has not yet ruled on cases where developers challenged OPSB denials.

Court Hears Second Round of Pandemic Unemployment Case

The Ohio Supreme Court began oral arguments in another case involving pandemic-era benefits. Chief Justice Kennedy questioned why the case returned to the high court. She noted the court previously dismissed an earlier version. The case was dismissed as moot, Kennedy stated.

An attorney representing Ohio Governor Mike DeWine sought to end the litigation. She said continuing the case wastes judicial and attorney resources. The attorney argued the case “simply has no point” given changed circumstances. She requested the Court put a final end to years of litigation.

Origins of Federal Unemployment Dispute

The case traces back to 2021 when eligible individuals sued the state. They challenged Ohio’s decision to end participation in a federal unemployment program. Congress passed the CARES Act in March 2020 as pandemic relief. The measure created the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program.

The program initially provided $600 per week in extra unemployment benefits. This lasted from March to July 2020. After that period, the program provided $300 per week in additional funds. The federal program was scheduled to close in September 2021.

States were not required to participate, but Ohio initially joined the program. Attorney Mathura Sridharan from the Attorney General’s Office explained DeWine’s reasoning. The extra money discouraged workers from returning to employment. This tightened labor markets, leading to DeWine’s decision to withdraw in June 2021.

An attorney representing affected Ohioans argued DeWine lacked legal authority. The governor should request benefits from the U.S. Department of Labor, the attorney stated. Nearly five years after the withdrawal, the case continues through Ohio courts. Ohioans returned to pre-pandemic unemployment benefits and systems after the state’s withdrawal.