The records request, initially made by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) in March 2020, has been hovering in legal limbo, with the attorney general contending that he has no relevant records within the scope of CMD’s inquiry or that the requested information doesn’t qualify as a public record. The CMD urged the Tenth District Court of Appeals to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the attorney general’s office to produce the records, which resulted in the discovery orders currently contested. Yost is now expected to appear for a deposition. Despite his office’s appeal that such actions are disproportionate and irrelevant to the case at hand, the office argues that demanding records such as letters, amicus curiae briefs, or meeting notes overtly goes beyond reason, potentially invading personal and campaign email accounts of the office’s staff, reaching out into territories far afield from the simply the dealings with RAGA or RLDF.
On the other side of the aisle, CMD counters that full discovery and Yost’s deposition are critical to determining the true function of the documents in question, challenging the notion that public offices should be trusted at their word with choices about what constitutes a public record, they argue that evidence exists to suggest the withholding of information pertaining to the attorney general’s dealings with influential organizations. CMD’s stance is given weight by an amicus brief submitted by the League of Women Voters of Ohio, Marshall Project, and Ohio NOW Education and Legal Fund, which posits that too much discretion in the hands of public officials could hinder the transparency that the Public Records Act is intended to ensure.