Hocking College has asked a judge to let it ignore a request for discovery, filed by the plaintiff in a public records lawsuit.

Attorneys for the college have argued that the information sought by Ryan Stubenrauch “would not further the resolution of this case, but would impose undue burdens on (the college’s) staff and budget.”

Stubenrauch, a Columbus attorney, wants information on every document HC has destroyed over the last 10 years; copies of all public-records requests made to the college in the same period; and information on paper shredders at the college.

He sued last May in Athens County Common Pleas Court over an alleged violation of public records law during the college’s search for a new president.

Stubenrauch has acknowledged he has no direct connection to the Hocking case, but has insisted that he is acting on principle, and is not “some greedy guy” seeking to win money from the college.

Based on Ohio statute and case law, Stubenrauch could receive up to $75,000 if he wins. He has said that if he gets any money, he will donate part of it to the Ohio Coalition for Open Government, a non-profit that supports compliance with state public-access laws.

By suing the college, Stubenrauch apparently blocked any other plaintiff from suing over the same issue – such as the Hocking College Education Association, a faculty union that first raised questions about records pertaining to the presidential search.

The basis for Stubenrauch’s suit is an admission by Hocking Trustee Alan Geiger that he destroyed evaluation forms filled out by college faculty, students, staffers and others, giving their assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of one of the three candidates for the president’s job.

That candidate, Ron Erickson, is now president. Geiger admitted, however, that he had disposed of Erickson’s evaluation forms after tallying their results. After the HCEA made a records request for the forms, Geiger retained the evaluations for the other two candidates.

Up to 75 forms were reportedly destroyed, and Ohio law allows for a $1,000 civil forfeiture per document in the case of illegal records destruction.

On Feb. 5, Stubenrauch filed a brief in the case, asking Judge Michael Ward to support his latest discovery request. He argued that he needs the information to help establish whether the evaluation forms qualify as “records” for the purpose of his lawsuit.

“Hocking’s policy uses terms interchangeably that have a legal bearing on this case,” stated the brief, written by Stubenrauch’s attorney, Mark H. Troutman. “Although (state law) allows Hocking to enact a policy managing its ‘records,’ Hocking’s policy refers to ‘public records.’ The terms ‘record’ and ‘public record’ have different meanings… Without any records retention schedule, Hocking’s own policy bears strongly on this case’s outcome.”

The best way to determine how HC interprets its own policy, Troutman maintained, is to examine how it has handled records in the past. “Otherwise, this court would give Hocking the ability to interpret its policy without uniformity,” he argued. “Convenient legal arguments may exist to justify Hocking’s destruction after the fact.”

Troutman also contended that information in the documents could have a bearing on the college’s claim that Stubenrauch does not qualify as an “aggrieved party” under Ohio law.

Though Hocking College argues otherwise, according to Troutman, case law on this question of who qualifies as an aggrieved party “is not well-developed,” and of the case law touching on this question, none involves a state college or university, “which plays by different rules than many other public entities.”

Therefore, Troutman argued, Ward “should at least allow Stubenrauch to develop a full record to assist with interpreting this area of law… Stubenrauch must be able to learn whether Hocking has treated his (records) requests differently than others. Hocking’s unchallenged interpretation of its own records policy makes Hocking the final arbiter of its public records. Hocking could apply differing standards on a case-by-case basis. The court should not allow Hocking to garner such power.”

Assistant attorney general Todd R. Marti responded for the college that Stubenrauch’s latest discovery requests – Hocking has already filled earlier ones – “have nothing to do with the issues presented” in the suit.

“This case turns on two issues,” the attorney wrote. “Stubenrauch’s extra requests will not help resolve either of them.” These issues, according to Marti, are whether Stubenrauch is legally an “aggrieved party,” and whether the forms at issue in the case qualify as “records.”

To answer the first question, Marti wrote, the law looks at whether the plaintiff can “show real injury,” which is “immediate and pecuniary,” and must be unique to the plaintiff, as compared to “a generalized grievance shared by a large class of citizens.”

Marti claimed Stubenrauch’s latest discovery requests deal with matters “he had no apparent involvement with. They will therefore tell us nothing about whether or how he was injured by the matters he sues over here.”

As for whether the evaluation forms were “records,” Troutman wrote, the only relevant documents are the forms themselves, not other documents the college has handled in the past.

“What Hocking did years ago with papers that concerned unrelated matters tells us nothing about how these particular forms were used in this unique situation,” he declared.

Finally, Marti wrote, Stubenrauch’s request is “unduly burdensome.”

He asked the judge to consider how much e-mail spam, unofficial e-mails and junk mail a person must delete daily. “Multiply that by 350 (the approximate number of Hocking employees) and 2,600 (the number of working days in 10 years) and the total is truly overwhelming,” he added. “Stubenrauch asks Hocking to catalogue such destruction. That is simply too much, given the scant value it would add.”

As for how HC has handled public-records requests in the last 10 years, Marti pointed out that “Hocking has an entire file room dedicated to storing those requests/responses.”

• Add New
• Search
• RSS

Comments (0)

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Website:

Comment:

Title:

UBBCode:         -color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Message:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.