Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed April 21, 2016 - Case No. 2016-0615   IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  OHIO     THE  STATE  OF  OHIO  ex  rel.     LAUREN  KESTERSON   6311  Third  Avenue   Kent,  OH  44240                                                        Relator,   vs.       KENT  STATE  UNIVERSITY   800  Summit  Street   Kent,  OH  44240                                                        Respondent.                   Original  Action  in  Mandamus                 Complaint  for  Writ  of  Mandamus  with  Affidavit  in  Support               Subodh  Chandra  (0069233)   Counsel  of  Record   Ashlie  Case  Sletvold  (0079477)   Peter  Pattakos  (0082884)   THE  CHANDRA  LAW  FIRM  LLC   1265  W.  6th  St.,  Suite  400   Cleveland,  OH  44113-­‐‑1326   (216)  578-­‐‑1700   (216)  578-­‐‑1800  (fax)   Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com   Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com   Peter.Pattakos@ChandraLaw.com     Attorneys  for  Relator  Lauren  Kesterson   Relator,  Lauren  Kesterson,  respectfully  states  its  Complaint  for  Writ  of   Mandamus  and  alleges  as  follows:   I.   Preliminary  Statement   1. This  is  a  mandamus  action  in  which  Relator,  Lauren  Kesterson,  asks  this   Court  to  order  Respondent,  Kent  State  University,  to  comply  with  a   public-­‐‑records  request  outstanding  since  February  2,  2016.  Ms.  Kesterson   brings  this  original  action  under  Ohio  S.  Ct.  R.  10.1,  R.C.  2731.01  et  seq.,   and  R.C.  149.43.     2. Ms.  Kesterson  is  a  former  Kent  State  varsity  softball  player.  Tucker  Linder   is  a  former  Kent  State  baseball  player  and  the  son  of  former  head  softball   coach  Karen  Linder.  Mr.  Linder  raped  Ms.  Kesterson  during  their   freshman  year.  During  her  sophomore  year,  Ms.  Kesterson  reported  the   rape  to  Coach  Linder.  Coach  Linder  insisted  that  Ms.  Kesterson  tell  no  one   else  what  her  son  had  done.  Coach  Linder  promised  to  take  care  of  the   situation,  but  instead  she  engaged  in  a  cover  up  and  retaliated  against  Ms.   Kesterson  for  reporting  the  rape.  Ms.  Kesterson,  scared  of  losing  her   scholarship  and  her  opportunity  to  play  the  sport  she  loves,  followed  her   coach’s  instructions  and  kept  her  mouth  shut  as  instructed  for  more  than  a   year  before  reporting  Coach  Linder’s  cover  up  to  the  Title  IX  office  at  Kent   in  the  fall  of  2015.  Coach  Linder  resigned  a  few  days  later.  Ms.  Kesterson   Page  2  of  13   continued  to  face  retaliation  for  opposing  discrimination  and  was  unable   to  continue  participating  in  the  softball  program  for  her  senior  season.     3. Respondent  is  the  public  office  responsible  for  producing  records   responsive  to  Relator’s  public-­‐‑records  request.  In  violation  of  its   obligations,  Respondent  has  failed  to  promptly  prepare  and  make  all   requested  records  available  notwithstanding  repeated  requests  by  counsel   on  Relator’s  behalf.   II.   Parties   4. Relator,  Lauren  Kesterson,  is  a  Kent  State  student  who  resides  at  6311   Third  Avenue,  Kent,  OH  44240  in  Portage  County.     5. Respondent,  Kent  State  University,  is  a  state  university  located  in  Portage   County.  Respondent  is  a  “public  office”  within  the  meaning  of  the  Act  and   as  that  term  is  defined  by  R.C.  149.011(A).     6. Respondent  is  required  to  maintain  and  preserve  public  records  in  its   possession,  custody,  or  control,  R.C.  149.351,  and  is  therefore  the  “person   responsible  for”  the  records  it  holds  within  the  meaning  of  the  Act.  As  the   public  office  and  as  the  person  responsible  for  the  public  records  that  it   holds,  Respondent  is  obligated  under  the  Act  to  promptly  prepare  such   records  and  make  them  available  for  inspection  and  copying  upon   request.  R.C.  149.43(B).   Page  3  of  13   III.   Jurisdiction  &  Venue   7. This  Court  has  jurisdiction  based  on  Section  2  of  Article  IV,  Ohio   Constitution,  which  establishes  original  jurisdiction  for  mandamus;  Ohio   S.  Ct.  R.  10,  which  is  the  rule  governing  original  actions  in  the  Ohio   Supreme  Court;  R.C.  2731.02,  et  seq.  which  are  the  code  sections   controlling  mandamus;  and  R.C.  149.43,  which  is  the  statute  establishing   public  rights  to  public  documents.   8. IV. Venue  is  appropriate  in  this  Court  under  R.C.  2731.02  and  R.C.  149.43(C).     Statement  of  the  Case   9. Relator  may  properly  bring  this  mandamus  action.       a. The  Ohio  Public  Records  Act  provides  that,  when  a  public  office   refuses  to  promptly  comply  with  a  public-­‐‑records  request,  the   requesting  party  “may  commence  a  mandamus  action”  to  obtain   the  records.  R.C.  149.43(C).   b. This  Court  has  held  that  mandamus  is  “the  appropriate  remedy  to   compel  compliance  with  Ohio’s  Public  Records  Act.”  State  ex  rel.   Consumer  News  Services,  Inc.  v.  Worthington  City  Bd.  of  Educ.,  97  Ohio   St.3d  58,  63,  2002-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑5311,  7778  N.E.2d  82,  88.  Relator  need  not   establish  the  absence  of  an  alternative  remedy  to  seek  a  writ  of   mandamus  under  the  Public  Records  Act.  State  ex  rel.  Morgan  v.   Page  4  of  13   New  Lexington,  112  Ohio  St.3d  33,  2006-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑6365,  857  N.E.2d  1208,   ¶  41.   c. In  this  case,  Respondent  and  its  officials  and/or  employees  failed  to   comply  with  Relator’s  February  2,  2016  public-­‐‑records  request.   d. 10. Therefore,  Relator  may  properly  bring  this  mandamus  action.   Respondent’s  failure  to  provide  all  of  the  requested  documents  is  not   justified  by  any  exception  to  disclosure  under  Ohio’s  Public  Records  Act   and/or  any  other  state  or  federal  law.   11. Respondent,  therefore,  must  produce  the  documents  under  R.C.   149.43(B)(1).     V. Violations  of  the  Public  Records  Act,  R.C.  149.43   12. On  February  2,  2016,  Relator’s  counsel  submitted  a  written  request  to   Respondent  by  email  and  certified  mail  for  three  specific  categories  of   records  requesting  compliance  by  February  12,  2016.  Aff.  of  Ashlie  Case   Sletvold  at  ¶  2  and  public-­‐‑records  request  to  Kent  State  University   (February  2,  2016)  (attached  as  Ex.  1  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   13. The  February  2  public-­‐‑records  request  sought  the  following  categories  of   records:   a. Category 1: “All personnel records, including records of training and discipline, for the following individuals: Karen Linder, Eric Oakley, Jessica Toocheck, Erin Barton, and Joel Nielson;”   Page  5  of  13   14. b. Category 2: “All records regarding training or information provided to the Kent State varsity softball team regarding Title IX, gender equity, sexual harassment, sexual assault, Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services, or the University’s policies or procedures for reporting instances of gender-based harassment or sexual assault (from the 2012–13 academic year to the present);” and   c. Category 3: “All records regarding student-athlete reviews of Coach Karen Linder from the 2010–11 academic year until her resignation in August 2015.”   Relator’s  counsel  sent  the  public-­‐‑records  request  by  email  and  certified   mail  and  requested  that  the  documents  be  produced  as  .pdf  files  by  email.   Id.  at  ¶¶  2,  4  and  certified-­‐‑mail  receipt  for  delivery  of  February  2,  2016   public-­‐‑records  request  (attached  as  Ex.  2  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   15. Kent  State  University  Associate  Counsel  Nichole  DeCaprio  sent  an  email   to  Relator’s  counsel  on  February  3  acknowledging  receipt  of  the  public-­‐‑ records  request  and  indicating  that  responsive  records  were  being   identified  and  gathered.  Id.  at.  ¶  5  and  email  from  DeCaprio  to  Sletvold   (2/3/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  3  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   16. On  February  16,  having  received  no  further  response  from  Ms.  DeCaprio,   Ms.  Sletvold  sent  a  follow-­‐‑up  letter.  Id.  at  ¶  6  and  letter  from  Sletvold  to   DeCaprio  (2/16/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  4  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   17. On  February  16,  Ms.  DeCaprio  responded  promising  that  the  records   would  be  provided  “early  next  week.”  Id.  at  ¶  7  and  email  from  DeCaprio   to  Sletvold  (attached  as  Ex.  5  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   Page  6  of  13   18. On  February  22,  Ms.  Sletvold  again  followed  up  with  Ms.  DeCaprio   indicating  that  a  three-­‐‑week  delay  was  unreasonable.  Id.  at  ¶  8  and  email   from  Sletvold  to  DeCaprio  (attached  as  Ex.  6  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   19. On  February  24,  Ms.  Sletvold  called  and  spoke  to  Ms.  DeCaprio  about  the   failure  to  provide  records.  Ms.  DeCaprio  promised  to  send  the  records   later  that  day.  Id.  at  ¶  9.   20.  On  February  24,  Ms.  DeCaprio  provided  a  partial  response  on  Kent   State’s  behalf.  In  response  to  the  first  request,  she  provided  the  redacted   personnel  files  of  Linder,  Toocheck,  Oakley,  Nielsen,  and  Barton.  In   response  to  the  second  request,  she  provided  a  handbook.  Id.  at  ¶  10  and   email  from  DeCaprio  transmitting  partial  response  (attached  as  Exhibit  7   to  Sletvold  Aff.).     21. The  following  day,  Ms.  DeCaprio  provided  a  second  partial  response   comprised  of  summaries  of  the  student-­‐‑athlete  reviews  of  Coach  Linder   that  were  compiled  by  a  graduate  student,  which  were  responsive  to  the   third  category  of  the  request.  Id.  at  ¶  11  and  email  from  DeCaprio   transmitting  partial  response  (attached  as  Exhibit  8  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   22. That  same  day,  Ms.  Sletvold  wrote  to  Ms.  DeCaprio  addressing  some   concerns  with  the  partial  responses  and  requesting  legal  authority  for  the   Page  7  of  13   extensive  redactions.  Id.  at  ¶  12  and  letter  to  DeCaprio  from  Sletvold   (2/25/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  9  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   23. On  March  2,  Ms.  Sletvold  wrote  another  letter  to  Ms.  DeCaprio  addressing   additional  concerns  with  the  responses  provided,  including  the  failure  to   provide  the  student-­‐‑athlete  reviews  and  the  failure  to  provide  category  2   records  of  training  on  sexual  assault,  Title  IX,  etc.  Id.  at  ¶  13  and  letter   from  Sletvold  to  DeCaprio  (3/2/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  10  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   24. Ms.  Sletvold  received  no  response  to  her  February  25  and  March  2  letters,   and  followed  up  again  on  March  7  requesting  a  date  by  which  the   complete  response  would  be  provided.  Id.  at  ¶  14  and  letter  from  Sletvold   to  DeCaprio  (3/7/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  11  to  Sletvold  Aff.).     25. On  March  14,  Ms.  DeCaprio  responded  providing  another  supplemental   response  (including  Karen  Linder’s  employment  contracts  that  had  not   been  provided  previously)  and  attempting  to  address  the  inadequacies   Ms.  Sletvold  had  identified  in  the  earlier  responses.  Regarding  the   student-­‐‑athlete  reviews  requested  in  category  3,  Ms.  DeCaprio  reported   that  they  were  not  maintained  (i.e.,  they  were  destroyed)  after  the   summaries  were  completed.  Regarding  the  sexual-­‐‑assault/Title  IX  training   materials  requested  in  category  2,  Ms.  DeCaprio  indicated  that  they  were   not  “centrally  maintained”  or  kept  by  the  softball  team.  She  also  indicated   Page  8  of  13   the  Kent  State  did  not  view  the  Public  Records  Act  as  “requiring  an  item-­‐‑ by-­‐‑item  list  of  the  grounds  for  each  redaction  absent  a  specific  question.”   Id.  at  ¶  15  and  letter  from  DeCaprio  to  Sletvold  (3/14/16)  (attached  as  Ex.   12  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   26. On  March  29,  Ms.  Sletvold  sent  a  letter  to  Ms.  DeCaprio  asking  if  the   University  had  completed  its  response  to  the  public-­‐‑records  request.  Id.  at   ¶  16  and  letter  from  Sletvold  to  DeCaprio  (3/29/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  13  to   Sletvold  Aff.).   27. On  April  1,  Ms.  DeCaprio  indicated  that  she  would  “respond  shortly.”  Id.   at  ¶  17  and  email  from  DeCaprio  to  Sletvold  (4/1/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  14  to   Sletvold  Aff.).   28. On  April  5,  Ms.  Sletvold  sent  another  follow  up  email  to  Ms.  DeCaprio   asking  when  she  expected  to  confirm  that  the  University’s  response  was   complete  and  indicating  that  Relator  did  not  wish  to  initiate  mandamus   proceedings  if  further  records  were  forthcoming.  Id.  at  ¶  18  and  email   from  Sletvold  to  DeCaprio  (4/5/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  15  to  Sletvold  Aff.).           29. On  April  12,  Ms.  Sletvold  sent  a  final  follow  up  email  to  Ms.  DeCaprio   asking  her  to  confirm  that  the  University  had  completed  its  response  and   indicating  that  this  would  be  the  final  attempt  to  obtain  an  answer  before   Page  9  of  13   seeking  mandamus  relief.  Id.  at  ¶  19  and  email  from  Sletvold  to  DeCaprio   (4/12/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  16  to  Sletvold  Aff.).   30. The  University  did  not  respond  to  Relator’s  counsel’s  March  29,  April  5,  or   April  12  requests  to  confirm  that  had  completed  its  production  in   response  to  the  public-­‐‑records  request.   31. As  of  the  filing  of  this  petition,  this  public-­‐‑records  request  has  been   outstanding  for  78  days.  Id.  at  ¶  22.     VI. Attorneys’  fees  and  costs   32. Under  the  Public  Records  Act,  public  records  are  to  be  made  available  for   inspection  and  copying  on  the  request  of  any  person.  The  obligation  of   public  officers  and  persons  responsible  for  public  records  to  make  the   records  available  does  not  depend  on  the  importance  of  the  reason  for  the   request.       33. In  this  action,  Relator  seeks  an  award  of  her  attorneys’  fees  and  costs.   34. In  a  mandamus  action,  both  the  propriety  and  the  amount  of  a   discretionary  award  of  attorneys’  fees  may  be  affected  by  a  determination   of  whether  a  “well-­‐‑informed”  public  officer  reasonably  would  believe  that   its  failure  to  comply  was  well-­‐‑founded  and  consistent  with  the  public   policy  underlying  any  claimed  exemption.  R.C.  149.43(C)(2)(b)(i),  R.C.   149.43(C)(2)(c)(i),  and  R.C.  149.43(C)(2)(c)(ii).  Further,  the  availability  of  a   Page  10  of  13   discretionary  award  to  the  Relator  may  be  affected  by  a  determination   whether  a  public  benefit  has  been  achieved  or  the  public  interest  has  been   served  by  the  mandamus  action.   VII. Public  benefit   35. A  writ  of  mandamus  in  this  case  commanding  that  the  requested  records   be  made  available  for  public  inspection  and  copying  will  serve  the  public   interest.   36. The  records  that  have  not  been  provided  relate  to  the  University’s   provision  (or  lack  of  provision)  of  training  to  the  softball  team  regarding   gender  discrimination  and  gender-­‐‑based  violence,  and  the  reporting   procedures  for  these  types  of  issues.  The  University  has  not  suggested  that   such  records  to  not  exist  or  are  exempt  from  disclosure  under  the  Act.   37. The  records  that  Ms.  DeCaprio  reported  were  destroyed  include  student-­‐‑ athletes’  unedited,  unfiltered  commentary  on  their  coach’s  treatment  of   them  and  their  teammates.  These  reviews  document  the  coach’s   performance  of  her  duties  as  a  softball  coach  at  a  major  Division  I   university.     38. The  University  has  littered  the  records  provided  with  improper   redactions.   Page  11  of  13   39. The  University  has  failed  to  identify  specific  legal  authority  for  each  of  the   redactions  imposed.   40. These  complete  records  will  inform  the  public—including  KSU  students   and  alumni—about  their  government,  and  will  allow  appropriate  legal   and  other  action  to  be  taken,  which  will  serve  the  very  purpose  of  the   sunshine  laws.   VIII. Oral  argument   41. If  this  Court  finds  that  its  decision  process  would  be  aided  by  oral   argument,  or  finds  itself  hesitant  to  grant  the  relief  requested,  Relator   respectfully  requests  such  argument  to  address  any  of  the  Court’s   concerns.   THUS,  Relator  prays  for  the  following:   • That  this  Court  issue  a  peremptory  writ  of  mandamus  directing   Kent  State  University  to  make  responsive  public  records  available   promptly  and  without  improper  redactions;   • That  this  Court  award  attorneys’  fees  and  costs  to  Relator;   • That  this  Court  order  any  other  relief  available  to  the  firm  under   R.C.  149.43  and/or  R.C.  2731.01  et  seq.  and  any  other  relief  as  is   appropriate.   Page  12  of  13   Dated:  April  21,  2016         Respectfully  submitted:       /s/    Subodh  Chandra         THE  CHANDRA  LAW  FIRM,  LLC   Subodh  Chandra  (0069233)   Counsel  of  Record   Ashlie  Case  Sletvold  (0079477)   Peter  Pattakos  (0082884)   THE  CHANDRA  LAW  FIRM  LLC   1265  W.  6th  St.,  Suite  400   Cleveland,  OH  44113-­‐‑1326   (216)  578-­‐‑1700   (216)  578-­‐‑1800  (fax)   Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com   Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com   Peter.Pattakos@ChandraLaw.com   Attorneys  for  Relator  Lauren  Kesterson           Page  13  of  13       IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  OHIO     THE  STATE  OF  OHIO  ex  rel.     LAUREN  KESTERSON                                                        Relator,   vs.       KENT  STATE  UNIVERSITY                                                        Respondent.               Original  Action  in  Mandamus             Memorandum  in  Support  of  Complaint  for  Writ  of  Mandamus                       Subodh  Chandra  (0069233)   Counsel  of  Record   Ashlie  Case  Sletvold  (0079477)   Peter  Pattakos  (0082884)   THE  CHANDRA  LAW  FIRM,  LLC   1265  W.  6th  St.,  Suite  400   Cleveland,  OH  44113-­‐‑1326   (216)  578-­‐‑1700   (216)  578-­‐‑1800  (fax)   Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com   Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com   Peter.Pattakos@ChandraLaw.com     Attorneys  for  Relator  Lauren  Kesterson   I. Statement  of  Facts   This  is  an  original  proceeding  in  mandamus  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  Ohio’s   Public  Records  Act,  R.C.  149.43.  Relator,  Lauren  Kesterson,  is  a  current  Kent  State   student  and  former  varsity  softball  player.  On  February  2,  2016,  she  sought  records   from  the  University  related  to  her  Title  IX  complaint  (Ms.  Kesterson’s  former  softball   coach,  Karen  Linder,  orchestrated  a  cover  up  when  Ms.  Kesterson  reported  that  Coach   Linder’s  son  had  raped  Ms.  Kesterson).  Public-­‐‑records  request  (2/2/16)  (attached  as  Ex.  1   to  Affidavit  of  Ashlie  Case  Sletvold,  ¶  2).     The  request  sought  the  following  records:   1. All  personnel  records,  including  records  of  training  and  discipline,  for  the   following  individuals:  Karen  Linder,  Eric  Oakley,  Jessica  Toocheck,  Erin   Barton,  and  Joel  Nielson;   2. All  records  regarding  training  or  information  provided  to  the  Kent  State   varsity  softball  team  regarding  Title  IX,  gender  equity,  sexual  harassment,   sexual  assault,  Sexual  and  Relationship  Violence  Support  Services,  or  the   University’s  policies  or  procedures  for  reporting  instances  of  gender-­‐‑ based  harassment  or  sexual  assault  (from  the  2012–13  academic  year  to  the   present);  and   3. All  records  regarding  student-­‐‑athlete  reviews  of  Coach  Karen  Linder  from   the  2010–11  academic  year  until  her  resignation  in  August  2015.       Id.   As  detailed  in  the  affidavit  of  Ashlie  Case  Sletvold  accompanying  the  complaint,   after  being  prodded  repeatedly,  Kent  State  provided  several  partial  responses  including   personnel  files  for  the  named  individuals,  a  student  handbook,  and  summaries  of  the   student-­‐‑athlete  reviews  that  were  compiled  by  a  graduate  student.  Sletvold  Aff.  at  ¶¶   Page  1  of  9   6–11  (Exs.  4–8).  Kent  State  has  littered  these  responses  with  redactions  without   providing  specific  legal  authority  for  each  one,  has  failed  to  substantively  respond  to   the  second  category,  and  reported  that  the  records  sought  in  category  3  were  destroyed.   Id.  at  ¶¶  12–15  (Exs.  9–10).    Despite  extensive  follow  up  by  Relator’s  counsel,  Kent  State   has  not  remedied  these  failures  and,  indeed,  has  refused  to  respond  to  Relator’s  request   to  confirm  that  its  response  is  complete.  Id.  at  ¶¶  16–20  (Exs.  11–16).   Kent  State  University  possesses  records  responsive  to  Ms.  Kesterson’s  request.   Despite  her  best  efforts  to  obtain  those  records,  the  University  has  failed  to  provide  all   requested  records  or  provide  the  records  with  only  appropriate  and  supported   redactions.  As  of  the  filing  of  this  action  on  April  21,  2016,  her  request  has  been   outstanding  for  79  days.   II. Law  &  Argument   A. Proposition  of  law   Should  the  Court  order  Kent  State  University  to  provide  complete   responsive  records  to  Ms.  Kesterson’s  February  2,  2016  public-­‐‑records   request?   B. The  Public  Records  Act  is  liberally  construed  in  favor  of  broad  access  to   public  records.   “The  Public  Records  Act  reflects  the  state’s  policy  that  ‘open  government  serves   the  public  interest  and  our  democratic  system.’”  State  ex  rel.  Morgan  v.  New  Lexington,   112  Ohio  St.3d  33,  2006-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑6365,  857  N.E.2d  1208,  ¶  28,  quoting  State  ex  rel.  Dann  v.   Taft,  109  Ohio  St.3d  364,  2006-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑1825,  848  N.E.2d  472,  ¶  20.  “Public  records  are  one   Page  2  of  9   portal  through  which  the  people  observe  their  government,  ensuring  its  accountability,   integrity,  and  equity  while  minimizing  sovereign  mischief  and  malfeasance.”  State  ex  rel.   Toledo  Blade  Co.  v.  Seneca  Cty.  Bd.  of  Commrs.,  120  Ohio  St.3d  372,  2008-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑6253,  899   N.E.2d  961,  ¶  20,  quoting  Kish  v.  Akron,  109  Ohio  St.3d  162,  2006-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑1244,  846  N.E.2d   811,  ¶  16.  “[O]pen  access  to  government  papers  is  an  integral  entitlement  of  the  people,   to  be  preserved  with  vigilance  and  vigor.”  Kish,  2006-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑1244,  ¶  17  (citing  cases).     This  Court  has  repeatedly  held  that  the  Public  Records  Act  “is  construed  liberally   in  favor  of  broad  access,  and  any  doubt  is  resolved  in  favor  of  disclosure  of  public   records.”  Gilbert  v.  Summit  Cty.,  104  Ohio  St.3d  660,  2004-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑7108,  821  N.E.2d  564,  ¶  7.   “[E]xceptions  to  disclosure  must  be  strictly  construed  against  the  custodian  of  the   public  records,  and  the  burden  to  establish  an  exception  is  on  the  custodian.”  State  ex   rel.  Multimedia,  inc.  v.  Snowden  (1995),  72  Ohio  St.3d  141,  142,  647  N.E.2d  1374,  1377,   citing  State  ex  rel.  James  v.  Ohio  State  Univ.,  70  Ohio  St.3d  168,  169,  637  N.E.2d  911,  912   (1994).     R.C.  149.43(B)(1)  states  that  “[i]f  a  public  record  contains  information  that  is   exempt  from  the  duty  to  permit  public  inspection  or  to  copy  the  public  record,  the   public  office  or  the  person  responsible  for  the  public  record  shall  make  available  all  of   the  information  within  the  public  record  that  is  not  exempt.”  Moreover,  “if  a  request  is   ultimately  denied,  in  part  or  in  whole,  the  public  office  .  .  .  responsible  for  the  requested   Page  3  of  9   public  record  shall  provide  the  requester  with  an  explanation,  including  legal  authority,   setting  forth  why  the  request  was  denied.”  R.C.  149.43(B)(3).     Under  these  provisions,  the  University  has  the  obligation  to  make  the  requested   records  available  or  provide  specific  legal  authority  for  failing  to  do  so.  The  Court   should  order  Kent  State  to  provide  the  complete  responsive  records  and  should  award   Relator  statutory  damages,  attorneys’  fees,  and  costs  in  seeking  this  relief.   C. Mandamus  is  the  appropriate  mechanism  to  enforce  a  public  office’s   failure  to  promptly  respond  to  a  public-­‐‑records  request.   The  Public  Records  Act  provides  that  “[a]ll  public  records  shall  be  promptly   prepared  and  made  available  for  inspection  to  any  person  at  all  reasonable  times  during   regular  business  hours.”  State  ex  rel.  Wadd  v.  City  of  Cleveland,  81  Ohio  St.3d  50,  52-­‐‑53,   1998-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑444,  689  N.E.2d  25,  28  (emphasis  supplied).  Mandamus  is  the  appropriate   remedy  to  compel  compliance  with  Ohio’s  Public  Records  Act.  Id.  at  52  (citation   omitted).  A  mandamus  action  under  R.C.  149.43(C)  is  appropriate  “[i]f  a  person   allegedly  is  aggrieved  by  the  failure  of  a  governmental  unit  to  promptly  prepare  a   public  record  and  make  it  available  to  the  person  for  inspection  in  accordance  with   [R.C.  149.43(B)  ].”  Id.  at  52-­‐‑53.  This  Court  has  specifically  held  that  “the  requirement  of   the  lack  of  an  adequate  legal  remedy  [in  a  mandamus  action]  does  not  apply  to  public-­‐‑ records  cases.”  State  ex  rel.  Morgan  v.  New  Lexington,  112  Ohio  St.3d  33,  2006-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑6365,   857  N.E.2d  1208,  ¶  41  (citations  omitted).     Page  4  of  9   D. The  records  requested  are  “public  records”  within  the  meaning  of  the   statute.   R.C.  149.43(A)(1)  defines  a  “public  record”  as  “records  kept  by  any  public   office…”  R.C.  149.011(G)  defines  “records”  as  “any  document,  device,  or  item,   regardless  of  physical  form  or  characteristic,  including  an  electronic  record  as  defined  in   section  1306.01  of  the  Revised  Code,  created  or  received  by  or  coming  under  the   jurisdiction  of  any  public  office  of  the  state  or  its  political  subdivisions,  which  serves  to   document  the  organization,  functions,  policies,  decisions,  procedures,  operations,  or   other  activities  of  the  office.”   Kent  State  University  is  a  “public  office”  for  purposes  of  the  Public  Records  Act.   The  records  Ms.  Kesterson  sought  in  her  February  2  public-­‐‑records  request  are  all   “records”  within  the  meaning  of  the  Act.  Employee  personnel  files  certainly  document   the  organization  of  the  institution.  Records  of  training  provided  to  student-­‐‑athletes  on   gender-­‐‑based  assault  and  harassment  and  how  to  report  gender-­‐‑motivated  violence   document  the  policies,  procedures,  operations,  and  other  activities  of  the  school  and  its   athletic  program.  And  records  of  student-­‐‑athlete  input  on  their  experience  as  softball   players  (including  reporting  on  the  performance  of  their  coaches)  document  the   functions,  operations,  or  other  activities  of  the  University.   E. The  Court  should  award  Relator  her  costs.   A  successful  mandamus  petitioner  is  entitled  to  an  award  of  all  court  costs.  R.C.   149.43(C)(2)(a).  The  Court  should  award  Ms.  Kesterson  her  costs  of  filing  suit.   Page  5  of  9   F. The  Court  should  award  statutory  damages.   A  public-­‐‑records  requester  who  submits  a  request  by  certified  mail  is  entitled  to   receive  statutory  damages  if  the  Court  finds  that  the  public  office  failed  to  comply  with   its  obligations.  R.C.  149.43(C)(1).  The  statute  provides  for  statutory  damages  of  $100  for   each  business  day  the  office  fails  to  comply  following  the  filing  of  a  mandamus  petition,   up  to  $1,000.  Id.  The  Court  may  decline  to  award  damages  if  it  finds  both  that  a  “well-­‐‑ informed”  public  office  would  “reasonably  believe”  that  its  failure  was  not  a  violation   of  the  Act  and  that  a  “well-­‐‑informed”  office  would  “reasonably  believe”  that  its  conduct   “did  not  constitute  a  failure  to  comply  with  an  obligation  under  [R.C.  149.43(B)].”  R.C.   149.43(C)(1).     Ohio  law  is  clear  that  a  “public  office  must  notify  the  requester  of  any  redactions,   and  a  redaction  is  treated  as  a  denial  of  the  public-­‐‑records  request.  If  all  or  part  of  a   request  is  denied,  the  public  office  shall  provide  an  explanation  for  the  denial  with   citations  to  legal  authority.”  State  ex  rel.  Ohio  Republican  Party  v.  Fitzgerald,  145  Ohio  St.   3d  92,  2015-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑5056;  47  N.E.3d  124,  ¶  34  (citing  R.C.  149.43(B)(1)  and  (B)(3)).  Kent   State’s  position  as  articulated  in  Assistant  Counsel  Nicole  DeCaprio’s  March  14  letter  to   Relator’s  counsel  takes  a  different  view:  “We  do  not  view  R.C.  149.43  as  requiring  an   item-­‐‑by-­‐‑item  list  of  the  grounds  for  each  redaction  absent  a  specific  question.”  See   Sletvold  Aff.  at  ¶  15  and  letter  from  DeCaprio  to  Sletvold  (3/14/16)  (Ex.  12).   Page  6  of  9   Kent  State  has  taken  the  unsupportable  position  that  Ms.  Kesterson  must  inquire   as  to  each  specific  redaction  to  be  entitled  to  receive  legal  authority  for  the  denial  of  her   request.  No  “well-­‐‑informed”  public  office  could  have  “reasonably  believed”  that  it  was   required  to  provide  legal  authority  for  a  denial  or  redaction  only  in  response  to  a   specific  question  when  this  Court’s  precedent  holds  to  the  contrary.  State  ex  rel.  Ohio   Republican  Party,  2015-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑5056,  at  ¶  34.   And  Kent  State  not  explained  why  is  will  not  provide  Ms.  Kesterson  with  the   category  2  records  (regarding  sexual-­‐‑assault/reporting  training  the  softball  team   received)  other  than  indicating  they  are  not  “centrally  maintained.”  A  “well-­‐‑informed”   public  office  could  not  reasonably  believe  that  it  was  abiding  by  its  obligations  under   R.C.  149.43  in  failing  to  collect  and  make  available  the  category  2  records  requested.  The   Court  should  award  statutory  damages.   G. The  Court  should  award  her  attorneys’  fees.   The  Act  provides  for  a  discretionary  award  of  attorneys’  fees  in  any  case  in   which  a  public  office  fails  to  carry  out  its  obligation  to  make  records  promptly  available   for  inspection  and  copying  upon  request.  R.C.149.43(C).     This  Court  has  held  that  its  “public-­‐‑benefit”  jurisprudence  under  prior  versions   of  the  Act  provides  the  standards  for  a  discretionary  award  of  attorneys’  fees  under  the   current  Act.  State  ex  rel.  Doe  v.  Smith,  123  Ohio  St.3d  44,  2009-­‐‑Ohio-­‐‑4149,  914  N.E.2d  159,   ¶  18-­‐‑36  (addressing  amendments  to  the  Public  Records  Act).  Under  this  Court’s   Page  7  of  9   jurisprudence,  courts  consider  the  reasonableness  of  the  office’s  conduct  and  “the   degree  to  which  the  public  will  benefit  from  release  of  the  records  in  question.”  Wadd,   81  Ohio  St.3d  50,  54.  This  public-­‐‑records  request  warrants  an  award  of  fees.     Relator  made  repeated  requests  for  the  records  in  question.  Despite  extensive   follow  up,  the  University  has  not  been  forthcoming  with  a  complete  response  and  has   placed  the  onus  on  Ms.  Kesterson  to  inquire  as  to  the  specific  basis  for  each   redaction/denial.  The  February  2  request  relates  to  matters  of  great  concern  to  the   general  public  including  the  competence  of  University  officials  charged  with  handling   gender-­‐‑based  violence  on  campus,  including  specifically  how  the  University                                   (1)  handled  complaints  regarding  a  coach  who  orchestrated  a  cover  up  of  her  player’s   rape  to  protect  the  coach’s  son  and  (2)  articulated  its  expectations,  policies,  and   procedures  to  student-­‐‑athletes  who  were  or  might  become  victims  of  sexual  assault.   In  the  absence  of  the  prospect  of  a  fee  award,  public  offices  have  an  obvious   incentive  to  refuse  any  disclosure  of  records  for  any  reason  or  no  reason.  Accordingly,   the  Court  should  award  the  firm  its  reasonable  attorneys’  fees  expending  pursuing  this   mandamus  petition.   II. Conclusion   Kent  State  University  has  failed  to  respond  fully  to  Ms.  Kesterson’s  February  2,   2016  public-­‐‑records  request.  The  Court  should  order  the  school  to  produce  the   Page  8  of  9   requested  public  records  and  award  Ms.  Kesterson  her  court  costs,  statutory  damages,   and  reasonable  attorneys’  fees.   Dated:  April  21,  2016         Respectfully  submitted:       /s/    Subodh  Chandra         THE  CHANDRA  LAW  FIRM,  LLC   Subodh  Chandra  (0069233)   Counsel  of  Record   Ashlie  Case  Sletvold  (0079477)   Peter  Pattakos  (0082884)   1265  W.  6th  St.,  Suite  400   Cleveland,  OH  44113-­‐‑1326   (216)  578-­‐‑1700   (216)  578-­‐‑1800  (fax)   Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com   Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com   Peter  Pattakos  @ChandraLaw.com     Attorneys  for  Relator  Lauren  Kesterson       Page  9  of  9     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO ex rel. LAUREN KESTERSON Relator, vs. Original Action in Mandamus KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Respondent. Affidavit of Ashlie Case Sletvold in Support of Complaint for Writ of Mandamus I, Ashlie Case SletvOld, having been-duly sworn, have personal knowledge of, and am competent to testify about, the following matters of fact, and testify as follows: 1. I am a partner with the Chandra Law Firm LLC and I represent Lauren Kesterson. 2. Attached as'Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of a public?records requestl submitted by email and certified mail on Lauren Kesterson?s behalf to Kent State University on February 2,r 2016. We requested compliance by February 12. We asked that the documents be produced as .pdf files by email to me and my paralegal. The request sought three categories of records: Page 1 of 7 a. ?All personnel records, including records of training and discipline, for the following individuals: Karen Linder, Eric Oakely, Jessica Toocheck, Erin Barton, and Joel Nielson; b. All records regarding training or information provided to the Kent State varsity softball team regarding Title IX, gender equity, sexual harassment, sexual assault, Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services, or the University?s policies or procedures for reporting instances of gender- based harassment or sexual assault (from the 2012?13 academic year to the present; and . c. All records regarding student-athlete reviews of? Coach Karen Linder from the 2010?11 academic year until her resignation in August 2015.? The third category of records requested are completed anonymously, so no concerns about student privacy are implicated. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the certified-mail receipt for delivery of our February 2, 2016 public?record request to Kent State University. On February 3, 2016, I received an email from Associate Counsel Nichole DeCaprio acknowledging receipt of the request and indicating that the University was identifying and gathering responsive records. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of Ms. DeCaprio?s email. Page 2 of 7 10. 11. On Febrary 16, 2016, I sent a letter to Ms. DeCaprio following up on the public? records request, which at that point had been outstanding for two weeks. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of my letter to Ms. DeCaprio. That same day, Ms. DeCaprio responded indicating that her office anticipated providing the requested records ?early next week.? Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of Ms. DeCaprio?s email. On February 22, 2016, I responded to Ms. DeCaprio?s email indicating that the three~weel< delay in providing the limited records requested was unreasonable. But I acquiesced to her representation that more time was needed. Attached as Exhibit 6 is'a true and accurate copy of my email to Ms. DeCaprio. On February 24, 2016, I called Ms. DeCaprio to follow up on the failure to provide the requested records. She promised that records would be sent later that day. On February 24, 2016, Ms. DeCaprio provided a partial response on Kent State?s behalf. In response to the first request, she provided the redacted personnel files of Linder, Toocheck, Oakley, Nielsen, and Barton. In response to the second request, she provided a handbook. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and accurate copy of Ms. DeCaprio?s email transmitting the partial response. On February 25, 2016, Ms. DeCaprio provided a second partial response to Kent State?s behalf. This partial reSponse?to the third category of requested records?? Page 3 of 7 12. 13. 14. 15. was comprised of summaries of the student-athlete reviews of Coach Linder that were apparently compiled by a graduate student. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and accurate copy of Ms. DeCaprio?s email transmitting the partial response. On February 25, 2016, I wrote to Ms. DeCaprio addressing some concerns I had identified during my review of the partial response and requesting the required specific legal authority for the plethora of redactions. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and accurate copy of my letter to Ms. DeCaprio. On March 2, 2016, following completion of my review of the partial response, I again wrote to Ms. DeCaprio to address additional concerns including the fact that, in response to the third request (student?athlete reviews of Linder), the Univrsity had provided only summary forms and not the actual, handwritten reviews the student-athletes complete. My letter also addressed the failure to provide category 2 records (training on sexual assault/Title Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and accurate copy of my letter to Ms. DeCaprio. Having received no response to my February 25 and March 2 letters, on March 7, 2016, I requested a date by which we could expect to receive the complete response. Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and accurate copy of my letter to Ms. DeCaprio. On March 14, 2016, Mr. DeCaprio provided another supplemental response that included the complete employment contracts with Karen Linder that had not Page 4 of 7 16. 17. 18. been provided with her personnel file. Attached as Exhibit 12 is a true and accurate copy of Ms. DeCaprio?s email and letter transmitting the partial response. The accompanying letter was intended to address the inadequacies in the partial responses that I had identified in my previous letters. Regarding the student-athlete reviews we requested in category 3, Ms. DeCaprio reported that they were not maintained destroyed) after the summaries were completed (see Ex. 12 at unnumbered page 5). Regarding the sexual-assault/Title IX training materials requested in category 2, Ms. DeCaprio indicated that they were not "centrally maintained? or kept by the softball team. (see Ex. 12 at unnumbered page 6). She also indicated: do not view R.C. 149.43 as requiring an item? by-item list of the grounds for each redaction absent a specific question.? (Id) On March 29, 2016, I sent a follow up letter requesting that Ms. DeCaprio confirm whether the University had completed its response to our public-records request. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and accurate copy of my letter to Ms. DeCaprio. On April 1, 2016, Ms. DeCaprio responded by email indicating that she would ?respond shortly.? Attached as Exhibit 14 is a true and accurate copy of Ms. ?DeCaprio?s email. On April 5, 2016, I sent another follow up email to Ms. DeCaprio asking when she expected to provide an answer to our request to confirm that the University?s Page 5 of 7 19. 20. 21. 22. response was complete and indicating that we did not want to initiate mandamus proceedings yet if further responses were forthcoming. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and accurate copy of my email to Ms. DeCaprio. On April 12, 2016, I sent a final follow-up email to Ms. DeCaprio asking her to confirm that the University had completed its response and indicating this would be my final attempt to obtain an answer before seeking mandamus relief. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and accurate copy of my email to Ms. DeCaprio. For more than three weeks, the University has not responded to my request to confirm that its production was complete. Kent State University has not complied with its obligations under RC. 149.43. As of today, Ms. Kesterson?s public-records request has been pending for 79 days. I declare the above to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. Dated: April 21, 2016 STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF CUYAI-IOGA Page 6 of 7 BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Ashlie Case Sletvold who acknowledged that she did sign the foregoing instrument and that the same is her own free act and deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal at Cleveland, Ohio, this let da}; of April, 2016. MM Notary PfiblidSling of Ohio My commission expires: b?g?wb-l SUZANNE ZARANKO 3i?> NOTARY . STATEOFOHIO. in?? Recorded In I II Cuyahoga County .. My Comm. Exp. 3132021 Page 7 of 7 February 2, 2016 Via email at hr-records@kent.edu and U.S. certified mail Tia Laughlin, Manager Kent State University Human Resources - Records 350 S. Lincoln Street Kent, OH 44242 Re: Public-records request Dear Ms. Laughlin: This is a public-records request under R.C. 149.43 to inspect the following records: 1. All personnel records, including records of training and discipline, for the following individuals: Karen Linder, Eric Oakley, Jessica Toocheck, Erin Barton, and Joel Nielson; 2. All records regarding training or information provided to the Kent State varsity softball team regarding Title IX, gender equity, sexual harassment, sexual assault, Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services, or the University’s policies or procedures for reporting instances of gender-based harassment or sexual assault (from the 2012–13 academic year to the present); and 3. All records regarding student-athlete reviews of Coach Karen Linder from the 2010– 11 academic year until her resignation in August 2015. Please note that we are not asking for any student-identifying information that might implicate privacy considerations. We are asking only for records regarding any training provided to student-athletes on the listed subjects. Ohio’s public-records law requires that a public office, upon receiving a public-records request, promptly make its records available for inspection.1 We expect to receive your complete response by February 12, 2016. Further, the statute gives the requester the right to choose the medium in which the records are received for inspection.2 Please provide .pdf files of the records by email to me at ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com and suzanne.zaranko@chandralaw.com.                                                                                                                 1 R.C. 149.43(B)(1). See State ex rel. Wadd v. City of Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 50, 54, 689 N.E.2d 25 (1998) (requiring public office to produce records within eight days of request). Page  1  of  2   www.ChandraLaw.com   EXHIBIT 1 Please contact me at the number above if you have any questions regarding this request. Sincerely, Ashlie Case Sletvold                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       2 R.C. 149.43(B)(6). 2  of  2   haw9r! SEWER: COMPLETE ms. i Comelete Items LE, and 3, -.- Your name and address On the reverse so that we cemeturn the card ta you. thema?piece, I Attaehthle card to the ba?ck'of or on the front if space permits. . COMPLETE sec-now ow DELIVERY the: Cl 1. ArElcie Addressed _to- - - Is de?very addrees different fromltem 1? Yes 12 1?6? A I I II If YES. enter delivery address below. No SW. . . WW \?xumm esoucmes (ZEONPK- 3w [0.90 (40 gr #1 a ur?'o?euall?acpressm? i .i El Aduit Signature?eetrleied Dehvary Fl istered Mail Restricted - i . . . Ga?l?ed Mall? D81 very . '_e_5ee__9402_1193 5246 31619; megaw- . I . I. 0%?th on-Deuyeml?eismgte? pg?vew Con?rmation?" I 3?5 3m? ["331 W5 5733 Ell?s?ii?a??Wigwam (ovar $500 Form 3811. mama PSN Dome?tlo EXHIBIT From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Decaprio, Nichole ndecapri@kent.edu Re: Public-records request February 3, 2016 at 4:54 PM ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com suzanne.zaranko@chandralaw.com, Mansfield, Eric emansfie@kent.edu Ms.$Sletvold, The$Office$of$General$Counsel$is$in$receipt$of$your$public$records$request,$a>ached.$$We$are$currently$in$the$ process$of$iden@fying$and$gathering$records$responsive$to$your$request$and$will$provide$you$with$an$update$ shortly.$$Please$contact$our$office$with$any$ques@ons$regarding$this$request. Thank$you, EEEEEE Nichole$DeCaprio Associate$Counsel Office$of$General$Counsel Kent$State$University 330E672E2982 From:&"TERLECKYJ,$MARIA"$ Date:&Tuesday,$February$2,$2016$at$3:50$PM To:&Nichole$Decaprio$ Subject:&FW:$PublicErecords$request Hello$Nichole, See$a>ached. Thanks, $ Maria Terleckyj Assistant Manager, HR Records Kent State University Division of Human Resources 310A Heer Hall Phone: 330-672-8081 Fax: 330-672-3047 Email: mterleck@kent.edu $ From:$Suzanne$Zaranko$[mailto:suzanne.zaranko@chandralaw.com]$ Sent:$Tuesday,$February$02,$2016$2:12$PM To:$hrErecords$ Cc:$Ashlie$Case$Sletvold$;$Peter$Pa>akos$ akos@chandralaw.com>;$Subodh$Chandra$;$Donna$ TaylorEKolis$ Subject:$PublicErecords$request 2016E02E02$PRR$to Kent$State$…niversity.pdf EXHIBIT 3 February 16, 2016 Via email to ndecapri@kent.edu Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Kent State University 800 E. Summit Street Kent, OH 44240 Re: Follow up on February 2, 2016 public-records request Dear Ms. DeCaprio: On February 2, we sent a public-records request to Kent State seeking several personnel files, records of certain training provided to the softball team, and the student-athlete reviews contained in the anonymous compliance forms the softball team fills out each year. You acknowledged receipt of our request the following day. We asked for the records by February 12, but that date came and went. The University has provided nothing. It has been two weeks since we submitted our request. The Public Records Act requires public offices to promptly make their records available for inspection. A two-week timeframe is more than reasonable to provide the modest categories of records we requested. Absent compliance by the end of this week, we will initiate mandamus proceedings to secure the University’s compliance. Again, please provide .pdf files of the records by email to me at ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com and suzanne.zaranko@chandralaw.com. Kind regards, Ashlie Case Sletvold Page  1  of  1   www.ChandraLaw.com   EXHIBIT 4 From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Decaprio, Nichole ndecapri@kent.edu Re: Follow up on February 2, 2016 public-records request February 16, 2016 at 4:33 PM Ashlie Case Sletvold ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com WALKER, WILLIS wwalker@kent.edu Ms. Sletvold, I am in receipt of your le8er, a8ached. Our office con Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM To: Nichole Decaprio Cc: Ashlie Case Sletvold , Peter Pa8akos , Subodh Chandra Subject: Follow up on February 2, 2016 public-records request EXHIBIT 5 . ?no.1 u? ?uuo? II..- .ao? ?snowy-nay} no? raw-aux..- It has been two weeks since we submitted our request. The Public Records Act requires public offices to make their records available for inspection. A twooweek timeframe is more than reasonable to provide the modest categories of records we requested. Absent compliance by the end of this week. we will initiate mandamus proceedings to secure the University's compliance. Again. please provide .pdf files of the records by email to me at ashlie.sletvold?chandralawcom and suzanne.zaranko?chandralawcom. Kind regards. Ashlie Case Sletvold Page 1 of 1 From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Ashlie Case Sletvold ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com Re: Follow up on February 2, 2016 public-records request February 22, 2016 at 10:49 AM Decaprio, Nichole ndecapri@kent.edu WALKER, WILLIS wwalker@kent.edu, Subodh Chandra Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com, Peter Pattakos peter.pattakos@chandralaw.com Ms. DeCaprio, We requested three discrete categories of public records. We are perplexed at how it could take more than three weeks to comply with such a limited request. But given your representation that you will provide the records early this week, we will refrain from filing for mandamus relief until Thursday (2/25). We hope that Kent will properly comply with its obligations under the Public Records Act and such filing will not be necessary. We look forward to receiving the requested records along with, as the statute mandates, the specific supporting authority for each of the redactions mentioned below. Kind regards, -Ashlie Case Sletvold The Chandra Law Firm, LLC 1265 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113.1326 216.578.1700 office 216.578.1800 fax Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com www.ChandraLaw.com www.ChandraLawBlog.com ------------------------------------------------This email may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please reply or call 216.578.1700, so we may correct our records. Please also delete the email from your system. ------------------------------------------------- EXHIBIT 6 From: Subject: Date: To: ndecapri@kent.edu Public Record Request, Sletvold February 24, 2016 at 6:22 PM ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com, rmurph20@kent.edu EXHIBIT 7 You have received 6 secure files from ndecapri@kent.edu. Use the secure links below to download. Ms. Sletvold, At the links below, please find records responsive to your request dated February 2, 2016. - In response to Part 1, please find the personnel files requested. Please note that personal information, such as social security number, Banner (University) ID, home address, birth date, names and information of family members, bank account numbers, retirement account information, and benefits information have been redacted. This information does not serve to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the university, and is therefore not a public record in accordance with R.C. 149.011(G). -Regarding Request #2, please see the attached Student-Athlete Handbook. We are continuing to gather records responsive to this portion of the request. -Regarding Request #3, I will provide you with these records tomorrow. Thank you, Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Office of General Counsel Kent State University 330.672.2982 Secure File Downloads: Available until: 25 March 2016 Click links to download: Handbook.pdf 1.30 MB, Fingerprint: efc7b7350add4628929d74c7ab763a69 (What is this?) Nielsen_Redacted.pdf 12.49 MB, Fingerprint: bb8b2e3f0fdec211782836ff32736c52 (What is this?) Toocheck_Redacted.pdf 1.17 MB, Fingerprint: 05afa902d2b5fbef689bcb9b4c4f3079 (What is this?) Oakley_Redacted.pdf 3.78 MB, Fingerprint: 1ae201b80e6d681b94e8dd425a76e3d4 (What is this?) Barton_Redacted.pdf 1.99 MB, Fingerprint: 2bed11370477de2a891284e3d49628d1 (What is this?) Linder Personnel File_Redacted.pdf 56.96 MB, Fingerprint: 62a0c923addaae82b7cac6b8d6217a6e (What is this?) You have received attachment link(s) within this email sent via Kent State University Secure File Sharing. To download the attachment(s), please click on the link(s) above. Secured by Accellion From: Subject: Date: To: ndecapri@kent.edu PRR, Sletvold February 25, 2016 at 5:15 PM ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com, rmurph20@kent.edu You have received 1 secure file from ndecapri@kent.edu. Use the secure link below to download. Ms. Sletvold, At the link below, please see the student athlete evaluations responsive to part 3 of your request. Note that redactions were made for personally identifiable information of students in accordance with FERPA regulations, 20 USC §1232g. Thank you, ---Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Office of General Counsel Kent State University 330-672-2982 Secure File Downloads: Available until: 26 March 2016 Click link to download: Student Athlete Evaluations_Redacted.pdf 10.73 MB, Fingerprint: d7ff70f4378cca1a2aea0f588b7017d9 (What is this?) You have received attachment link(s) within this email sent via Kent State University Secure File Sharing. To download the attachment(s), please click on the link(s) above. Secured by Accellion EXHIBIT 8 February 25, 2016 Via email to ndecapri@kent.edu and U.S. Mail (with disk) Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Kent State University 800 E. Summit Street Kent, OH 44240 Re: Follow up on partial response to February 2, 2016 public-records request Dear Ms. DeCaprio: Thank you for providing a partial response to our February 2 public-records request to Kent State University. We have begun our review of the partial response and write to address some initial concerns regarding the version of Karen Linder’s personnel file that we received. We were dismayed to find that—despite KSU’s delay in providing the requested records—the documents made available are replete with redactions that seem to be improper for which KSU did not provide specific legal authority. Under the Public Records Act, a redaction constitutes a denial of a request.1 And “[i]f a request is ultimately denied, in part or in whole, the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record shall provide the requester with an explanation, including legal authority, setting forth why the request was denied. If the initial request was provided in writing, the explanation also shall be provided to the requester in writing.”2 Though KSU did not provide this authority, we acknowledge that it is appropriate to redact state-employee home addresses and social security numbers under State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson3 and State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron4 respectively. But your February 24 email transmitting the records offered no legal authority supporting the remaining redactions. For example, employee birth dates,                                                                                                                 1 R.C. 149.43(B)(1). 2 R.C. 149.43(B)(3). 3 106 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-4384, 833 N.E.2d 274, ¶¶ 34. 4 70 Ohio St.3d 605, 606, 1994-Ohio-6, 640 N.E.2d 164. Page  1  of  4   www.ChandraLaw.com   EXHIBIT 9 residence city, and zip code are not protected.5 Nor is familial information or email addresses for state-university employees.6 The assertion that the redactions removed information that was not public record under R.C. 149.011(G) is insufficient to comply with the requirement that a public office state the basis for each denial. The following documents from Karen Linder’s personnel file illustrate some of the issues we have identified: • KSU0000137 (Employee Personal Data Form): not only are the social-security number and home address redacted, so are her marital status, sex, ethnic origin, date of birth, handicap, veteran status, emergency contact, and all familial information. As described above, these additional categories of information are not exempted under the Act and should not be redacted. • KSU000028–29 (PERS Personal History Record): information under “Service Information” and “Employment Information” is redacted. How could “Employment Information” be exempt from disclosure? And even the subject heading for § V is redacted, so we cannot determine whether it was appropriate for KSU to redact the entire contents of that section. Likewise KSU000297 (Administrative Service Record): this record contains redactions for hiring and service dates: how could the dates of someone’s employment be exempt from disclosure? • KSU000054 (part of 2011 Annual Evaluation): appears to redact names of studentathletes listed as earning certain Mid-American Conference awards that season. This information is not protected by any exemption or by federal student-privacy laws. Indeed, KSU issued press releases on May 12, 2011 when Alex Marcantonio was named to the MAC All-Freshman team and on May 15, 2011 when Abbey Ledford was named to the MAC All-Tournament team. This information is currently available on KSU’s website in the story archives. Also available on KSU’s website is its Softball Record book, which indicates that in 2011, Ms. Marcantonio was named to the MAC All-Freshman team. Information that KSU has endeavored to publicize                                                                                                                 5 See e.g., State ex rel. Bardwell v. City of Rocky River, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91022, 2009Ohio-727, ¶ 46 (granting mandamus relief and statutory damages to requesting party for public office’s improper redaction of residence cities and zip codes, birth dates, and checking-account information). See 149.43(A)(1)(p) (exempting familial information for peace officers, prosecutors, firefighters, investigators, and other law-enforcement personnel). 6 We have taken the liberty of Bates numbering KSU’s partial production for ease of reference. Accompanying the hard-copy transmission of this letter is a disk containing the entirety of KSU’s February 24 response with Bates numbers. We would be happy to Bates stamp the completed production once it is provided. Or you are welcome to pick up where we left off: KSU000728 would be the next number in order. Please note that we will number records in the order received, so any unredacted records that you provide will be marked as next in sequence and will not replace the ones originally provided. 7 2 of 4 and still maintains on its website is not appropriately redacted from a public-records response. • KSU000030 (2004 Annual Election Form): the document is almost entirely redacted, including information below the box that appears to be part of the form itself (as opposed to something the employee would complete). Information on a standard form that KSU asks its employees to complete cannot be exempt. • KSU000314 (email from K. Linder to J. Weir and C. Miller 7/7/14): there is a redaction of what appears to be a request to pay someone other than Linder for working softball camps earlier that year. What is KSU’s legal authority for the redaction? Likewise with KSU000315–16. • KSU000321–354: these records appear to be printouts from a database, but contain so many redactions it is impossible to discern what they are. Likewise with KSU000355–358. The legal authority for the redactions is not apparent. • KSU000032 (Letter from L. Salasek to K. Linder 11/10/03): nearly half of this letter from KSU’s Division of Human Resources is redacted. Certainly Mr. Salasek was not communicating with Ms. Linder about a SEAL Team 6 raid on a suspected terrorist camp: we cannot fathom why such extensive redactions could be appropriate. More importantly, under the statute we don’t bear the burden of guessing why KSU has redacted substantial chunks of the records. Please provide specific legal authority for each of the redactions in KSU’s February 24 partial response to our February 2 public-records request. These referenced documents provide only a small sampling of the problem. These same issues repeat time and again throughout KSU’s response. We expect that all instances of improper redactions will be addressed. Per the Act, KSU must adequately identify the legal authority for all proper redactions or provide unredacted records. If KSU has specific authority for each of the redactions, please provide it. Otherwise, please provide the unredacted records. We regularly request and receive public records from all types of public offices throughout the state. We have never before seen such extensive redactions to a personnel file— including for the many law-enforcement officers whose files we have received who receive special exemptions under the Act given the sensitivity of their positions. While we can appreciate the desire to be thorough, Ms. Linder’s personnel file documents the employment of a softball coach at a state university. National security is not at stake: the records should not look like unclassified documents about the CIA’s program of enhanced-interrogation techniques. Absent clear authority to redact, it is improper to do so. Finally, we did not receive complete, executed versions of Karen Linder’s employment contracts for 2008 and 2011. The first page of the 2008 version is provided at KSU000208 (and KSU000210, and KSU000213). The first page of the 2011 version is provided at KSU000172 (and KSU000175, KSU000180, KSU000186, KSU000190, and KSU000193). Each document indicates that it is “1 of 3” pages. But the second and third pages are missing from each contract. Please provide the complete, executed versions of these records. 3 of 4 We look forward to receiving KSU’s completed response and any additional legal authority applicable to the redactions. Please contact me at the number above with any questions. Kind regards, Ashlie Case Sletvold Disk enclosed with U.S. Mail version 4 of 4 March 2, 2016 Via email to ndecapri@kent.edu Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Kent State University 800 E. Summit Street Kent, OH 44240 Re: Additional follow up on partial response to February 2, 2016 public-records request Dear Ms. DeCaprio: Following up on my February 25 letter, I write to address additional concerns with KSU’s partial response. It has been a month since we submitted the request and were hoping that we would have received the university’s completed responses much sooner. I understand that you continue to work to provide KSU’s responses and appreciate your efforts to that end. In addition to the general concerns detailed in my letter last week, below are some further issues we have identified: • Is it possible to provide a legible copy of KSU000234? • KSU000410 references a memo from Loretta Shields to Erin Barton dated 1/9/15 regarding excessive use of sick/vacation leave. But that document was not provided with Ms. Barton’s personnel records. Please provide it. • KSU000466 and 496: Why is the “deferred compensation” section redacted? • KSU000509, KSU000519–31, KSU000533–34: Please state the legal authority for each redaction. • KSU000573, 575 (redacting “Cellular Phone # Obtained by Employee for Business Use”): What is KSU’s legal authority for redacting a phone number obtained “for business use” by a university employee? • KSU000697, KSU000641–42: What is KSU’s authority for redacting phone numbers or email addresses for references provided by an employee or prospective employee? KSU requires applicants to authorize the institution to contact the references provided. And KSU notifies applicants that “Documents submitted to Kent State University for employment opportunities are public record and subject to Page  1  of  2   www.ChandraLaw.com   EXHIBIT 10 disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act.” See e.g. KSU000644 (emphasis in original). Thus, such contact information is used by the university in carrying out its functions and is provided voluntarily by applicants who know it will become public record. If KSU has authority for redacting reference phone numbers or email addresses provided by employees, please provide it. We appreciate KSU providing the summary forms that appear to have been complied by the Compliance department from the softball team’s annual reviews of their coaches and other athletic-department staff each season. We have marked KSU’s production of those records KSU000728–757 and attached the Bates-numbered records to the transmitting email message for this correspondence. But we asked for all records of such reviews, not just the summary reports complied by Compliance. KSU has not provided the actual forms completed by the athletes. We understand that these are handwritten forms that are completed anonymously, so there are no student-privacy issues. Please provide these records. Regarding the records provided, please address the following concerns: • KSU000746 contains an entire line of redaction. Is KSU asserting that FERPA justifies the redaction of that entire line? Is there another legal basis for the redaction? • KSU000752 appears that certain redactions are of the names of universities. What is the basis for that? • KSU000754–56 include several lines of redactions. Are the redactions all student names? Or is the university asserting another basis for the redactions? • KSU000757 redacts approximately half of the page including columns for “sport” and “date.” Why would the sport and the date be exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act? Finally, we still have not received any of the category 2 records (regarding training provided to the softball team about Title IX/sexual assault/etc.) from our February 2 request. Our investigation thus far suggests that there has been a dearth of such training, so it is hard to imagine why providing responsive records would take more than a month. Please contact me at the number above with any questions. Kind regards, Ashlie Case Sletvold Enclosure (KSU000728–57) 2 of 2 March 7, 2016 Via email to ndecapri@kent.edu Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Kent State University 800 E. Summit Street Kent, OH 44240 Re: Further follow up on February 2, 2016 public-records request Dear Ms. DeCaprio: Following up on my February 25 and March 2 letters, we have not received a response to either message. Nor have we received any of the category 2 records from our February 2 request. Please provide a date certain by which we can expect to receive the requested records—in their entirety—with only those redactions for which KSU can provide specific legal authority. As may have become clear by now, we anticipate submitting public-records requests to KSU with some regularity in the coming months. We hope that the University will timely comply with its obligations and that mandamus relief will not be necessary to clarify KSU’s duties under the sunshine laws. If KSU’s course of partial compliance continues, however, we will not hesitate to seek the extraordinary writ. Please contact me at the number above with any questions. Kind regards, Ashlie Case Sletvold Page 1 of 1 www.ChandraLaw.com EXHIBIT 11 From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Decaprio, Nichole ndecapri@kent.edu Public Record Request, Sletvold March 14, 2016 at 4:22 PM Ashlie Case Sletvold ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com Suzanne Zaranko suzanne.zaranko@chandralaw.com Ms. Sletvold: Please see the a0ached correspondence and records, in response to your le0ers of 2.25.16 and 3.2.16. ---Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Office of General Counsel Kent State University 330-672-2982 Le0er to Sletvold 3.14.16.pdf EXHIBIT 12 KENTSf,{fE" UNIVERSITY Ashlie Case Sletvold The Chandra Law Firm, LLC 1265 W .6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 441 13.1326 Via Email to ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com March 14,2016 RE: Response to 2/25 and 3/2letters. Ms. Sletvold: Let this letter serve as a response to your letters dated February 25th,2016 and March 2, 2016 conceming our responses thus far to your February 2,2016 public records request. You note that redactions constitute denials under R.C. $149.43, but please be aware that R.C. $149.43(BXl) notes that redactions do not constitute denials if state or federal law authorizes the redaction. We have reviewed our responses in light your specific concems. After that review, we believe that the redactions were appropriate and authorized or required by federal and state law. We have noted your additional record requests, however, and for those, we are providing documents. An item by item response to the specific issues raised in your two letters is included below. Questioned Redactions l. KSU000013 (Employee Personal Data Form): not only are the social-security number and home address redacted, so are her marital status, sex, ethnic origin, date of birth, handicap, veteran status, emergency contact, and all familial information. As described above, these additional categories of information are not exempted under the Act and should not be redacted. . 2. Response: Redaction ofsocial security nurnbers is authorized wrder State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Alson,70 Ohio St. 3d 605, 610-11 (1994). Other redacted materials are not public records because they do not "document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities" of the University. R.C. 149.0 1 1 (G); Dispatch Pr inting Co. v. Johnson, 2005-Ohio-4384, 1 22, 106 Ohio St. 3d 160, 164. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. KSU000028-29 (PERS Personal History Record): information under "Service Information" and "Employment Information" is redacted. How could "Employment Information" be exempt from disclosure? And even the subject heading for $ V is redacted, so we cannot determine whether it was appropriate for KSU to redact the entire contents of that section. Likewise KSU000297 (Administrative Service Record): this record contains redactions for hiring and service dates: how could the dates of someone's employment be exempt from disclosure? Office of General Counsel " ::3 ?;;l;ii; :;X; llll; Ken! S!u!r iill,';!?'' Unittrtitt, un Etluul Opporrunit Enploter . 3. Response: The personal history record and other information ofa state retirement contributor is protected under R.C. 145.27(A), R.C. 3305.20, R.C. 3307.20(8) and Ohio Adm. Code 3307-1-03. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. I Annual Evaluation): appears to redact names of student athletes listed Mid-American Conference awards that season. This information is not protected by any exemption or by federal student-privacy laws. Indeed, KSU issued press releases on May 12,201I when Alex Marcantonio was named to the MAC All-Freshman team and on May I 5, 201 1 when Abbey Ledford was named to the MAC All-Toumament team. This information is currently available on KSU's website in the story archives. Also available on KSU's website is its Softball Record book, which indicates that in 2011, Ms. Marcantonio was named to the MAC All-Freshman team. Information that KSU has endeavored to publicize and still maintains on its website is not appropriately redacted from a public-records response. KSU000054 (part of20l as eaming certain ' 4 KSU000030 (2004 Annual Election Form): the document is almost entirely redacted, including information below the box that appears to be part of the form itself (as opposed to something the employee would complete). Information on a standard form that KSU asks its employees to complete cannot be exempt. . 5. ofa state retirement contributor is protected under R.C. 145.27(A), R.C. 3305.20, R.C. 3307.20(8) and Ohio Adm. Code 3307-1-03. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. Response: The personal history record and other information KSU000314 (email from K. Linder to J. Weir and C. Miller 717114): there is a redaction of what appears to be a request to pay someone other than Linder for working softball camps earlier that year. What is KSU's legal authority for the redaction? Likewise with KSU000315-16. . 6. Response: Within the context of this particular record, the redacted information meets tlle definition ofan education record not subject to disclosure under the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. g 12329, e/ seq. and Kent State University Policy 5-08.101. See also 34 C.F.R. 99.3; State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ., 1 32 Ohio St. 3d 2 1 2, 21 9, 2012-Ohio-2690, 97 0 N.8.2d 939, 947, (20 1 2). W e reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense ofthese redactions. Response: The redacted information was not responsive to your records request. KSU000321-354: these records appear to be printouts from a database, but contain so many redactions it is impossible to discem what they are. Likewise with KSU000355-358. The legal authority for the redactions is not apparent. . Response: The personal history record and other information ofa state retirement contributor is protected under R.C. 145.27(,4'), R.C. 3305.20, R.C. 3307.20(8) and Ohio Adm. Code 3307-1-03. Charitable deductions and employment benefit deductions are not public records. R.C. 149.011(G). Other redacted materials are not public records because they do not "document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities" of the University. R.C. la9,0l1(G); Dispatch printing Co. v. Johnson,2005-Ohio-43 84 , n 22, 106 Ohio St. 3d 160, 164. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense ofthese redactions. 7. KSU000032 (Letter from L. Salasek to K. Linder 1ll10/03): nearly half of this letter from KSU's Division of Human Resources is redacted. Certainly Mr. Salasek was not communicating with Ms. Linder about a SEAL Team 6 raid on a suspected terrorist camp: we cannot fathom why such extensive redactions could be appropriate. ' 8. Finally, we did not receive complete, executed versions of Karen Linder's employment contracts for 2008 and 201 1. The first page ofthe 2008 version is provided at KSU000208 (and KSU000210, and KSU000213). The first page ofthe 201 1 version is provided at KSU000I72 (and KSU000175, KSU000180, KSU000186, KSU000190, and KSU000l93). Each document indicates that it is "1 of3" pages. But the second and third pages are missing from each contract. Please provide the complete, executed versions of these records. ' 9. Response: You received the contents of the file you requested. The indicated pages were not redacted; they do not exist in the file. We have treated your follow-up letters as new requests for documents, and those are attached as KSU000758-763. Is it possible to provide a legible copy of KSU000234? ' 10. Response: This is correspondence conceming state retirement or altemative retirement plans and thus properly redacted. R.C. 3305.20, R.C. 3307.20(8); Ohio Adm. Code 33071-03. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. Response: The indicated page is as legible as it exists in the file. We have attached a rescan at KSU 000764 in the event that the rescan helps legibility. KSU0004l0 references a memo from Loretta Shields to Erin Barton date d l/9115 regarding excessive use of sick/vacation leave. But that document was not provided with Ms. Barton's personnel records. Please provide it. . Response: You received the contents ofthe file you requested. We have treated your follow-up letter as a new request for additional documents. The newly requested document is attached as KSU000765-766. Redactions were made for health and family information of an employee. These materials are not public records because they do not "document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities" of the University. R.C. 149.011(G); Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 2005-Ohio-4384,n22, 106 Ohio St. 3d 160, 164. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense ofthese redactions. 11. KSU000466 and 496: . Why is the "deferred compensation" section redacted? Response: The personal history record and other information ofa state retirement contributor is protected under R.C.145.27(A), R.C. 3305'20, R.C. 3307.20(8) and Ohio Adm. Code 3307-1-03. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense ofthese redactions. 12. KSU000509, KSU000519-31, KSU000533-34: Please state the legal autlority for each redaction. . KSU000509 ' . KSU0005l9-531 ' . Response: The personal history record and other information ofa state retirement contributor is protected under R.C. 145.27(A), R'C. 3305.20, R.C. 3307.20(B) and Ohio Adm. Code 3307-1-03. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. Response: The personal history record and other information ofa state retirement contributor is protected under R.C. 145.27(4), R.C. 3305.20, R.C. 3307.20(8) and Ohio Adm. Code 3307-1-03. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reiuons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. KSU000533-34 ' Response: The personal history record and other information ofa state retirement contributor is protected under R.C. 145.27(A), R.C' 3305.20, R.C. 3307.20(8) and Ohio Adm. Code 3307-1-03. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense ofthese redactions. "Cellular Phone # Obtained by Employee for Business Use"): What is KSU's legal authority for redacting a phone number obtained "for business use" by a university employee? 13. KSU000573, 575 (redacting . Response: The phone numbers themselves are not public records because they do not "document the organization, firnctions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities" of the University. R.C. 149.01l(G); Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 2005-Ohio-4384,n22, 106 Ohio St. 3d 160, 164. We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense ofthese redactions. 14. KSU000697, KSU000641-42: What is KSU's authority for redacting phone numbers or email addresses for references provided by an employee or prospective employee? KSU requires applicants to authorize the institution to contact the references provided. And KSU notifies applicants that "Documents submitted to Kent State University for employment opportunities are public record and subj ect to 2 of 2 disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act." See e.g. KSU000644 (emphasis in original). Thus, such contact information is used by the university in carrying out its functions and is provided voluntarily by applicants who know it will become public record. If KSU has authority for redacting reference phone numbers or email addresses provided by employees, please provide it. . . KSU000697 Response: There are no redactions on this document. o KSU000641-642 . Response: The phone numbers themselves are not public records because they do not "document the organization, frrnctions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities" of the University, R.C' 149.011(G); Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 2005-Ohio-4384, 11 22' 106 Ohio St. 3d 160' 1 64' We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. all records ofsuch reviews, notjust the surnmary reports complied by Compliance. KSU has not provided the actual forms completed by the athletes. We understand that these are handwritten forms that are completed anonymously, so there are no student-privacy issues. Please provide these records. 15. But we asked for . Response: The handwritten responses were treated as transient records and not maintained after the contents were type-written, which is consistent with Kent State University's record retention policy. R.C. 1a9.011(G); Kent State University Policy 5 15; Inter-University Council Record Retention Manual (2009 ed,). - 16. KSU000746 contains an entire line of redaction. Is KSU asserting that FERPA justifres the redaction of that entire line? Is there another legal basis for the redaction? . Information is redacted under the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 12329, et seq. and Kent State University Policy 5-08.101. See also 34 C.F.R. 99.3; State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ.,132 Ohio St.3d 212, 219,2012-Ohio-2690, 970N.8.2d 939,947,(2012). We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense ofthese redactions. 17. KSU000752 appears that certain redactions are of the names of universities. What is the basis for that? . Information is redacted under the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 12329, et seq. and Kent State University Policy 5-08.101, as "personally identifiable information" linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person to identiff the student with reasonable certainty. 34 C.F.R' 99.3; State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ.,132 Ohio St.3d 212,219,2012-Ohio-2690,970 N.E.2d 939, 947 , (2012). We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. 18. KSU000754-56 include several lines ofredactions. Are the redactions the university asserting another basis for the redactions? all student names? Or is . Information is redacted under the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 12329, et seq. and Kent State University Policy 5-08.l0l. See also 34 C.F.R. 99.3; State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ.,132 Ohio St.3d 212,219,2012-Ohio-2690, 970 N.E.2d 939,947, (2012). We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense of these redactions. halfofthe page including columns for "sport" and "date." Why would the sport and the date be exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act? 19. KSU000757 redacts approximately . Disclosure would lead to identification of the student. Information is redacted under the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C. $ 12329, et seq. and Kent State University Policy 5-08.101. See also 34 C.F.R. 99.3; State ex rel. ESPNv. Ohio State Univ., 132 Ohio St.3d 212,219,2012-Ohlo-2690,970N.8.2d 939,947, (2012). We reserve the right to rely upon additional reasons or legal authority in defense ofthese redactions. 20. Finally, we still have not received any of the category 2 records (regarding training provided to the softball team about Title I)Vsexual assaulVetc.) from our February 2 request. Our investigation thus far suggests that there has been a dearth of such training, so it is hard to imagine why providing responsive records would take more than a month. . You were provided with the student handbook, which is responsive to this request. Training provided to the softball team, specifically and separately from training provided to student-athletes, or even the general student body, about Title IX and sexual assault issues, is not centrally maintained. Training materials on these issues are kept by the sponsoring departments and organizations, not the softball team. If you would like to revise your request to seek training materials or records from sponsoring departments or organizations, you are free to revise your request. See State ex rel. ESPN v. Ohio State Univ.,132 Ohio St.3d 212, 214,2012-Ohio-2690, 970 N.8.2d939,943, (2012). Finally, with respect to your request that we set forth the basis ofall other redactions, the basis ofthe other redactions included, without limitation, the Federal Privacy Act, 5 USC $552a, FERPA,20 U.S'C. $ 12329, medical records under to RC $ 149.43(AX1)(a) and (AX3), PERS "personal history information" under to RC $3307.20(8)(2), and materials that qualifr as non-records under R.C. 149.011(G). We do not view R.C. 149.43 as requiring an item-by-item list of the grounds for each redaction absent a specific question. Please feel free to contact us with any additional questions ofconcems you have conceming this matter. ク″レμ″赤 υ Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel March 29, 2016 Via email to ndecapri@kent.edu Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Kent State University 800 E. Summit Street Kent, OH 44240 Re: Follow up on February 2, 2016 and February 24, 2016 public-records requests Dear Ms. DeCaprio: Please confirm that Kent State University has completed its responses to the public-records requests our office submitted on February 2 and February 24. If Kent State intends to provide additional records, please provide a firm date by which we should expect them. Kind regards, Ashlie Case Sletvold Page 1 of 1 www.ChandraLaw.com EXHIBIT 13 From: Subject: Date: To: Decaprio, Nichole ndecapri@kent.edu Re: Correspondence re public-records requests April 1, 2016 at 5:14 PM Ashlie Case Sletvold ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com Ms. Sletvold, Our office is in receipt of your email below. We are reviewing the le>er and noted requests, and will respond shortly. ---Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Office of General Counsel Kent State University 330-672-2982 From: Ashlie Case Sletvold Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:07 AM To: Nichole Decaprio Subject: Correspondence re public-records requests Please see a>ached. -- Ashlie Case Sletvold The Chandra Law Firm, LLC 1265 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113.1326 216.578.1700 office 216.578.1800 fax Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com www.ChandraLaw.com ------------------------------------------------This email may contain privileged or confiden^al informa^on. If you have received this email in error, please reply or call 216.578.1700, so we may correct our records. Please also delete the email from your system. ------------------------------------------------- EXHIBIT 14 From: Subject: Date: To: Ashlie Case Sletvold ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com Re: Correspondence re public-records requests April 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM Decaprio, Nichole ndecapri@kent.edu A week ago, I asked whether the University’s response to our February 2 and February 24 public-records requests was complete. When do you expect to provide a response to that question? Obviously, we do not wish to initiate mandamus proceedings if further records will be forthcoming. Please respond. -Ashlie Case Sletvold The Chandra Law Firm, LLC 1265 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113.1326 216.578.1700 office 216.578.1800 fax Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com www.ChandraLaw.com ------------------------------------------------This email may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please reply or call 216.578.1700, so we may correct our records. Please also delete the email from your system. ------------------------------------------------- On Apr 1, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Decaprio, Nichole wrote: Ms. Sletvold, Our office is in receipt of your email below. We are reviewing the le>er and noted requests, and will respond shortly. ---Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Office of General Counsel Kent State University 330-672-2982 From: Ashlie Case Sletvold Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:07 AM To: Nichole Decaprio Subject: Correspondence re public-records requests Please see a>ached. -- Ashlie Case Sletvold The Chandra Law Firm, LLC 1265 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113.1326 216.578.1700 office 216.578.1800 fax Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com www.ChandraLaw.com EXHIBIT 15 ------------------------------------------------This email may contain privileged or confiden^al informa^on. If you have received this email in error, please This email may contain privileged or confiden^al informa^on. If you have received this email in error, please reply or call 216.578.1700, so we may correct our records. Please also delete the email from your system. ------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Date: To: Ashlie Case Sletvold ashlie.sletvold@chandralaw.com Re: Correspondence re public-records requests April 12, 2016 at 12:35 PM Decaprio, Nichole ndecapri@kent.edu Another week has passed without a response to my request to confirm that the University has completed its response. This is my final attempt to confer regarding our February 2 and February 24 public-records requests. Please respond by 5:00 tomorrow indicating whether any additional records will be provided. Thank you. -Ashlie Case Sletvold The Chandra Law Firm, LLC 1265 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113.1326 216.578.1700 office 216.578.1800 fax Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com www.ChandraLaw.com ------------------------------------------------This email may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please reply or call 216.578.1700, so we may correct our records. Please also delete the email from your system. ------------------------------------------------- On Apr 5, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Ashlie Case Sletvold wrote: A week ago, I asked whether the University’s response to our February 2 and February 24 public-records requests was complete. When do you expect to provide a response to that question? Obviously, we do not wish to initiate mandamus proceedings if further records will be forthcoming. Please respond. -Ashlie Case Sletvold The Chandra Law Firm, LLC 1265 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113.1326 216.578.1700 office 216.578.1800 fax Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com www.ChandraLaw.com ------------------------------------------------This email may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please reply or call 216.578.1700, so we may correct our records. Please also delete the email from your system. ------------------------------------------------- On Apr 1, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Decaprio, Nichole wrote: Ms. Sletvold, Our office is in receipt of your email below. We are reviewing the le>er and noted requests, and will respond shortly. ---Nichole DeCaprio Associate Counsel Office of General Counsel Kent State University 330-672-2982 From: Ashlie Case Sletvold Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:07 AM To: Nichole Decaprio Subject: Correspondence re public-records requests EXHIBIT 16 Please see a>ached. -- Ashlie Case Sletvold The Chandra Law Firm, LLC 1265 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113.1326 216.578.1700 office 216.578.1800 fax Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com www.ChandraLaw.com ------------------------------------------------This email may contain privileged or confiden^al informa^on. If you have received this email in error, please reply or call 216.578.1700, so we may correct our records. Please also delete the email from your system. -------------------------------------------------   IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  OHIO     THE  STATE  OF  OHIO  ex  rel.     LAUREN  KESTERSON   6311  Third  Avenue   Kent,  OH  44240                                                        Relator,   vs.       KENT  STATE  UNIVERSITY   800  Summit  Street   Kent,  OH  44240                                                        Respondent.                   Original  Action  in  Mandamus                 Praecipe       TO  THE  CLERK:     Please  serve  a  copy  of  the  following  documents  upon  Respondent,  c/o  Willis  Walker,   Vice  President  and  General  Counsel,  via  certified  U.S.  Mail  service,  return  receipt   requested,  at  the  above  address:     1.   Complaint  For  A  Writ  Of  Mandamus  With  Affidavit  in  Support;  and   2.   Memorandum  In  Support  Of  Complaint  For  A  Writ  Of  Mandamus.         Page  1  of  2   Dated:  April  21,  2016           Respectfully  submitted,   /s/  Subodh  Chandra         THE  CHANDRA  LAW  FIRM,  LLC   Subodh  Chandra  (0069233)   Counsel  of  Record   Ashlie  Case  Sletvold  (0079477)   Peter  Pattakos  (0082884)   THE  CHANDRA  LAW  FIRM,  LLC   1265  W.  6th  St.,  Suite  400   Cleveland,  OH  44113-­‐‑1326   (216)  578-­‐‑1700   (216)  578-­‐‑1800  (fax)   Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com   Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com   Peter.Pattakos@ChandraLaw.com     Attorneys  for  Relator  Lauren  Kesterson     Page  2  of  2