Brown-Austin v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility

Public Records Act; Public Records Request; In Camera Inspection; Summary Judgment; City Employee Personnel Records; Confidential; N.C.G.S. 160A-168(c)(4); Independent Determination that the Interests of Justice Require; N.C.G.S. 160A-168(c1)(2)

Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43(B) moot ambiguous overly broad. Overview: Requester sought records of a division of fire employee, division drug-testing policy, and "all correspondence from the [division's] drug-testing contractor" for a two-month period. The City asserted that it had provided all records responsive to the first two requests, and that the third request was improperly ambiguous and overly broad. The Special Master recommended that the court find the first two requests were moot, and that the third claim was properly denied as both ambiguous and overly broad.

Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43 R.C. 9.01 format metadata. Overview: Requester sought draft meeting minutes in the format they were kept at the time of the request. Respondent stated it had no duty to provide a document that could be edited, and produced the record in PDF format that was both less functional and contained less or different metadata. The special master recommended that the court order respondent to provide the record in the format in which it was kept. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's report and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein.

Negligence; emergency call; public duty; proximate cause. Plaintiff was driving a semi-trailer while stopped at a traffic light. Defendant's employee, a state trooper, negligently drove his vehicle into plaintiff's trailer. The evidence did not support defendant's argument that the trooper was on an emergency call at the time of the incident. The public duty rule also did not apply in this situation. However, plaintiff failed to prove that the minor traffic incident was the proximate cause of his personal injury and request for damages. Judgment for defendant.