The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) made the records request, which was limited to the time frame between February 2019 and the office’s response. The attorney general’s office answered that it had no records responsive to the center’s request or the information wasn’t a record, as defined in the Ohio Public Records Act. CMD asked the Tenth District Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus ordering the office to produce the requested public records.
The Tenth District ordered discovery in the case. The attorney general provided a document retention schedule and the names of people who ran the searches for the records. Certain employees of the office were deposed. Yost didn’t appear for his deposition. On the other requests for records, the office objected.
A Tenth District magistrate ordered the attorney general’s office to respond to several interrogatories. The magistrate also directed that the office produce documents to CMD on certain requests and provide other documents to the court first for in camera review. The magistrate overruled CMD’s other requests. The court found that its discovery orders would help answer whether the materials are or are not records. The magistrate also stated that Yost must appear for a deposition.
The attorney general’s office appealed the decisions to the Supreme Court, which must hear the case.