State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings

This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.

---

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer vs. Krings Number: 93 Ohio St. 3d 654, 758 N.E.2d 1135 Year: 2001 State: Ohio Court: Ohio Supreme Court Other lawsuits in Ohio Other lawsuits in 2001 Precedents include: This case established three criteria to determine if a contractor is subject to government records requests: if the records were prepared by the private entity while fulfilling a function of a public body if the public body monitors the private entity while it is performing that function the public body has access to the records in order to monitor the private entity.

Sunshine Laws

How to Make Records Requests

Sunshine Litigation

Sorted by State, Year and Topic

Sunshine Nuances

Deliberative Process Exemption

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings was a case before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2001 concerning the application of open records laws to private corporations.

Important precedents

This case established three criteria to determine if a contractor is subject to government records requests:

1. if the records were prepared by the private entity while fulfilling a function of a public body
2. if the public body monitors the private entity while it is performing that function
3. the public body has access to the records in order to monitor the private entity.

Background

• In 1995, Hamilton County government put a referendum on the ballot to institute a sales tax to help pay for new stadiums for the Cincinnati Bengals and Reds professional sports teams. The ballot measure passed and the tax went into effect. Construction began on the stadiums.
• In January 1998, Hamilton County and the city of Cincinnati entered into a contract to regulate the development of the area around the new football stadium.
• Construction contracts for the stadium were issued to Getz Ventures, Turner Construction Company, Barton Malow Company, and D.A.G. Construction Co., Inc.. While the contractors are not considered public bodies as they do not receive a majority of their funds from public sources, and do not perform a public function, their compensation was paid for by tax dollars with regards to this project. Getz was hired as the project manager, and was designated as the counties agent with regard to project development. It had the task of developing all the project plans, modifying budgets as the project grew and advising the various other construction companies.
• On March 6, 2000 a reported for the Cincinnati Enquirer submitted a public records request for a number of items including all correspondence between the contractors themselves and the contractors and the city relating to cost overruns with the construction of the stadium.
• The county complied with the request to the best of its ability by providing access to all coresspondance between public officials and the contractors.
• The contractors denied their portion of the request, claiming that internal memoranda of contractors is not a public record under the act.
• The newspaper filed suit and the trial court ruled in favor of the newspaper.
• The contractors appealed the decision.

Ruling of the court

The trial court ruled in favor of the newspapers, ordering the release of the communication and contractor's memorandum. The trial court also awarded attorney's fees to the Enquirer in the amount of $9,991.50.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and ordered the records release. The court first established three criteria to consider public records within a private entity subject to the records act, namely:

1. if the records were prepared by the private entity while fulfilling a function of a public body
2. if the public body monitors the private entity while it is performing that function
3. the public body has access to the records in order to monitor the private entity.

The court went on to establish that both statutory and case history indicated that the construction of sporting venues was typically a task of municipal governments and was done in the economic interest of the greater community. Further, the contract laid out between the county and the contractors afforded the county the opportunity to monitor the contractors and granted them full access to the contractors records during the project. Based on these determinations, the court decided that the records in question are within the scope of the open records law and are further the responsibility of the county. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, including attorney's fees, and ordered the documents released.

External links

• Ruling of the Court