Sengstock v. Twinsburg

2022 Ohio 314
CourtOhio Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 6, 2022
Docket2021-00330PQ
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 Ohio 314 (Sengstock v. Twinsburg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sengstock v. Twinsburg, 2022 Ohio 314 (Ohio Super. Ct. 2022).

Opinion

[Cite as Sengstock v. Twinsburg, 2022-Ohio-314.]

LOREN C. SENGSTOCK Case No. 2021-00330PQ

Requester Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

v. JUDGMENT ENTRY

CITY OF TWINSBURG

Respondent

{¶1} On November 17, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends (1) a finding by the Court that Respondent has failed to produce public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1), (2) issuance of an order directing Respondent to “disclose the redacted employee names,” (3) issuance of an order directing that Requester is entitled to recover from Respondent the costs associated with this action, including the twenty-five-dollar filing fee, and (3) assessment of court costs to Respondent. {¶2} Neither party has timely filed written objections 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.” {¶3} The Court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation of November 17, 2021. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds that that Respondent has failed to produce public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1). The Court ORDERS Respondent to forthwith disclose certain redacted employee names, as Case No. 2021-00330PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY

set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Requester is entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that are incurred by Requester, but Requester is not entitled to recover attorney fees. Court costs are assessed to Respondent. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Judge

Filed January 6, 2022 Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/4/22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 Ohio 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sengstock-v-twinsburg-ohioctcl-2022.