lawsuit

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO STATE EX REL. OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Relator v.

JOHN KASICH, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, Respondent

: : : : : : : : : : :

Case No. 12-cv-010246

Judge John P. Bessey

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT OHIO GOVERNOR JOHN R. KASICH

Now comes Defendant, Ohio Governor John R. Kasich, by and through counsel, and files this Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint averring as follows: FIRST DEFENSE 1.

In response to Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the

Amended Complaint speaks for itself.

2.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Amended

Complaint.

3.

In response to Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that a

document labeled Exhibit A was filed with the original Complaint. Defendant further states that no exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint refers to the document labeled Exhibit A attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the document speaks for itself. To the extent a further response

is required, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint for lack of knowledge.

4.

In response to Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that a

document labeled Exhibit M was filed with the original Complaint. Defendant further states that no exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint refers to the document labeled Exhibit M attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the document speaks for itself. To the extent a further response is required, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint for lack of knowledge.

5.

In response to Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that

documents labeled Exhibits C-I were filed with the original Complaint. Defendant further states that no exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint refers to the documents labeled Exhibits C-I attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the documents speak for themselves.

Further answering, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint.

Defendants further states that documents responsive to Michael

Carrozzo’s request for the Governor’s schedule from January 1, 2012 to August 27, 2012 were sent to Plaintiff on July 16, 2012, August 24, 2012, September 6, 2012, and September 12, 2012.

6.

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Amended

Complaint.

7.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Amended

Complaint for lack of knowledge.

2

8.

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Amended

Complaint.

9.

Defendant states that Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint states legal

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a further response is required, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint.

10. is required.

Defendant states that Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response To the extent a further response is required, Defendant states that R.C.

§149.43(A)(1)(a-bb) speaks for itself.

11.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant denies that he has failed to adequately respond to any public records request. Defendants further states that documents responsive to Carrazzo’s request for the Governor’s schedule from January 1, 2012 to August 27, 2012 were sent on July 16, 2012, August 24, 2012, September 6, 2012, and September 12, 2012. Further answering, Defendant has no knowledge as to what the Ohio Democratic Party is or is not “aware of,” and therefore denies the allegation.

12.

In response to Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant repeats his

responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11.

13.

In response to Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that a

letter dated July 2, 2012 purporting to be a request for public records from Michael Carrozzo was sent to the Governor’s Office. Defendant denies for lack of knowledge whether Carozzo was acting on behalf of the Ohio Democratic Party.

14.

In response to Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that no

exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 14 of the

3

Amended Complaint refers to the document labeled Exhibit B attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the document speaks for itself.

15.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the Amended

Complaint for lack of knowledge.

16.

In response to Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that no

exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint refers to the documents labeled Exhibits B-G attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the documents speak for themselves.

17.

In response to Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that no

exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint refers to the documents labeled Exhibit H and I attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the documents speak for themselves. Defendant further states that on July 9, 2012, the Governor’s Office’s responded to Carrozzo’s request for “records relating to the guest/visitor sign-in ledger for the Governor’s Office” from April 1, 2012 through June 6, 2012 and April 1, 2012 to June 11, 2012. The Governor’s Office response dated July 9, 2012 is labeled as Exhibit J to Plaintiff’s original Complaint.

18.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of the Amended

Complaint and expressly denies that any public records requests have gone “unfulfilled or partially unfulfilled.”

19.

In response to Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that no

exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint refers to the document labeled Exhibit J attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that Exhibit J speaks for itself.

4

20.

In response to Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that no

exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint refers to the documents labeled Exhibits K and L attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the documents speak for themselves.

21.

In response to Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that no

exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint refers to the document labeled Exhibits L attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the document speaks for itself.

22.

In response to Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that no

exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint refers to the document labeled Exhibits L attached to the original Complaint, Defendant states that the document speaks for itself.

23.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant denies the allegation that any public records request was fulfilled “only in part,” and states that all relevant public record requests have been fully and completely answered in accordance with Ohio law.

24.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 24 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant denies that it is “imperative” for the public to know the details of Governor Kasich’s schedule in advance, and further states that disclosing such information unnecessarily creates a safety and security risk for the Governor, members of his family, and the Highway Patrol troopers who are assigned to the detail to protect the Governor and his family.

25.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of the Amended

Complaint as to the Ohio Democratic Party’s motives for lack of knowledge.

5

26.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant admits that the requested documents are prospective in nature. Further answering, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint and specifically denies that any such constitutes a “public record” under Ohio law.

27.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant denies the allegation that any public records request “have not been responded to in a prompt or reasonable amount of time.”

28.

In response to Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint, Defendant states that the

documents speak for themselves.

29.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 of the Amended

Complaint, and further states that the language employed in Paragraph 29 is “immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous,” in violation of Civil Rule 12(F).

30.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant admits that public record responses have been redacted to omit information which would unnecessarily compromise the Governor’s personal security, in addition to the safety and security of the members of his family and the Highway Patrol troopers who are assigned to the detail to protect the Governor and his family. Defendant further admits that these redactions are authorized by the public records exemption for “security records” set forth in R.C. §149.433(A). Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint.

31.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant denies that there has been any “lack of appropriate response” to the public

6

record requests at issue, and denies for lack of knowledge all allegations regarding what the Ohio Democratic Party is or is not “aware of.”

32.

Defendant states that Paragraph 32 contains legal conclusions that do not require a

response. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations and specifically denies that the Ohio Democratic Party “requests only records pertaining to the functions of the Office of the Governor of Ohio.”

33.

Defendant states that Paragraph 33 does not set forth any allegations which the

Governor can admit or deny.

34.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 34 of the Amended

Complaint.

Further answering, Defendants states that documents responsive to Carrazzo’s

request for the Governor’s schedule from January 1, 2012 to August 27, 2012 were sent on July 16, 2012, August 24, 2012, September 6, 2012, and September 12, 2012.

35.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant states that no exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint refers to the document labeled Exhibit B attached to the original Complaint, Defendant expressly denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint.

36.

In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the Amended

Complaint, Defendant states that no exhibits were attached to the Amended Complaint. To the extent that Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint refers to the document labeled Exhibit B attached to the original Complaint, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint. Further answering, Defendants states that documents responsive to

7

Carrazzo’s request for the Governor’s schedule from January 1, 2012 to August 27, 2012 were sent on July 16, 2012, August 24, 2012, September 6, 2012, and September 12, 2012.

37.

Defendant states that Paragraph 37 contains legal conclusions that do not require a

response. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations set forth therein.

38.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 of the Amended

Complaint.

39.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in the

WHEREFORE paragraph or any relief whatsoever.

40.

Defendant denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted.

SECOND DEFENSE

41.

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

THIRD DEFENSE 42.

Documents responsive to Carrazzo’s request for the Governor’s schedule from

January 1, 2012 to August 27, 2012 were timely produced on July 16, 2012, August 24, 2012, September 6, 2012, and September 12, 2012, in compliance with the Ohio Public Records Act and with Carrazzo’s request to produce documents on a rolling basis.

FOURTH DEFENSE 43.

The requested documents for the Governor’s schedule with respect to future

events do not constitute “records” under R.C. § 149.011(G).

8

FIFTH DEFENSE 44.

Some or all of the documents requested by the Ohio Democratic Party are exempt

from disclosure as “security records,” pursuant to R.C. §149.433(A).

SIXTH DEFENSE 45.

Some or all of the documents requested by the Ohio Democratic Party are exempt

from disclosure as “confidential law enforcement investigatory records,” pursuant to R.C. §149.43(A)(1)(h) and R.C. §149.43(A)(2)(d).

SEVENTH DEFENSE 46.

Some or all of the documents requested by the Ohio Democratic Party are exempt

from disclosure under executive privilege, deliberative process privilege, and/or any other applicable privileges.

EIGHTH DEFENSE 47.

Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement his Answer and defenses

raised herein.

WHEREFORE, having answered the Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief sought and respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL DEWINE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Aaron D. Epstein Aaron D. Epstein (0063286), Trial Attorney Pearl M. Chin (0078810) Assistant Attorneys General Constitutional Offices Section 30 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor

9

Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 466-2872 – Phone (614) 728-7592 – Fax aaron.epstein@ohioattorneygeneral.gov pearl.chin@ohioattorneygeneral.gov Attorneys for Defendant Ohio Governor John R. Kasich

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Answer of Defendant Ohio Governor John R. Kasich was served on September 14, 2012 by regular U.S. mail upon the following:

Shane McClelland McClelland, Well LLP 35 E. Gay Street, Suite 244 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorney for Relator-Plaintiff Ohio Democratic Party /s/ Pearl M. Chin Pearl M. Chin Assistant Attorney General

10