MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
2005-0867
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
In Mandamus. This cause came on for further consideration of relator’s motion for
an order holding respondents in contempt, for sanctions, for the appointment of a
receiver, and for other ancillary relief. Upon consideration thereof, and in
accordance with the court’s entry of August 10, 2005,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that relator’s motion remains held in
abeyance.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall be provided with copies
of all withheld documents enumerated on the receiver’s “List 2”, which the court
has determined to be within the scope of the writ. The documents shall be
provided to respondents under seal, along with this entry, using the same
organizational format and numbered tabs that the receiver used in filing the
documents with the court. Respondents shall not be provided with copies of the
receiver’s List 2 or any of his other lists, reports, or work product.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than ten days from the date of this
entry, counsel for respondents shall release these documents to relator, provided
that no later than four days from the date of this entry, respondents’ counsel shall
submit any redactions he wishes to make to these documents for the court’s
approval. A proposed redaction will be considered properly submitted for
approval if it meets all of the following requirements: (1) It is clearly marked on
the document in such a way that the information sought to be redacted remains
legible; (2) the document upon which the redaction is sought to be made is
identified by the tab number that was provided to the respondents by the court; and
(3) an explanation of why the proposed redaction is sought accompanies the
proposed redaction. No redactions shall be made on the basis that the information
sought to be redacted is not a “public record” or is otherwise privileged, excepted,
or exempted under the Public Records Act. Redactions will be permitted on the
basis that the information in question either relates to purely personal matters of
individual employees and does not involve the use of business assets, funds,
accounts, or credit, or does not refer or relate in any manner to the coin funds or
their subsidiaries or to transactions or other business among and between the coin
funds, their subsidiaries, or their managers.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ counsel shall release all
documents so ordered in unredacted form, unless otherwise approved by the court.
In the event the court does not complete its determination with regard to any and
all redactions submitted for its approval within seven days from the date of this
entry, respondents’ counsel shall release all documents subject to this entry no later
than three days from the date of the court’s determination as to the propriety of the
proposed redactions, except as follows: Certain documents from among those
documents formerly released by respondents and/or respondents’ counsel in
redacted form, copies of which shall be separately provided to respondents along
with this entry, shall be immediately released to relator in unredacted form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents released by respondents’
counsel in accordance with this entry shall be released to relator in the same format
as they were filed with the court and provided to respondents.
Alice Robie Resnick, Acting C.J.
Thomas F. Bryant, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for Moyer, C.J.
Thomas J. Grady, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for Lundberg
Stratton, J.
Robert H. Gorman, J., of the First Appellate District, sitting for O'Connor, J.
Diane Karpinski, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for O'Donnell, J.
Michael J. Corrigan, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for
Lanzinger, J.
Later
