In a recent ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed a complaint filed by Scott Gardner against the Village of Hiram, Ohio, regarding public records. The court found that Gardner did not follow the necessary legal procedures to file his complaint, which could have implications for how public records requests are handled in the future.

This case, Gardner v. Hiram, was filed under docket number 2026-P-0048 and decided on November 2, 2026. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when seeking public records through legal channels.

Scott Gardner, who represented himself in this case, claimed that his requests for public records related to Hiram Councilman Chris Perme were inadequately addressed by the village officials. He argued that the responses he received were contradictory and did not sufficiently explain why certain records were withheld.

The respondents in this case included the Village of Hiram and several officials: Sue Ellen Steffens, Anne Haynam, and Chief Clements. They filed a motion to dismiss Gardner's complaint, arguing that it was premature because Gardner had already filed a similar complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims.

Gardner's initial complaint in the Court of Claims was filed on May 12, 2026, and was still pending when he submitted his mandamus action. However, Gardner later dismissed the Court of Claims case on July 9, 2026, just prior to filing his mandamus action.

In their motion, the respondents contended that Gardner's mandamus action was void because it was initiated while the Court of Claims case was still active. They also pointed out that Gardner had failed to serve a pre-suit complaint as required by Ohio law, which contributed to the grounds for dismissal.

In response, Gardner argued that his mandamus action was valid because he had voluntarily dismissed the Court of Claims case and had complied with the necessary service requirements. He claimed to have sent a pre-suit demand via certified mail to the respondents, although the mail was never claimed by the village.

However, the court found that Gardner's actions did not meet the legal requirements for service as outlined in Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 149.43(C)(1). The court noted that the statute requires a requester to serve a complaint to the public office and allow three business days for the office to respond before pursuing a mandamus action.

The court stated, "A relator must comply with the requirements of R.C. 149.43(C)(1) before filing a mandamus action." The judges emphasized that Gardner's attempts at service were inadequate because the certified mail was not accepted by the respondents, and he did not follow up with ordinary mail as required by the rules.

In addition, the court pointed out that while Gardner claimed to have sent emails to the respondents, email is not an acceptable method of service under Ohio law. The court ruled that actual notice of the complaint does not rectify the failure to comply with proper service procedures.

The court ultimately granted the respondents' motion to dismiss and ruled that Gardner's complaint in mandamus was dismissed. The judges involved in the decision included John J. Eklund, Robert J. Patton, and Scott Lynch.

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking access to public records in Ohio. It reinforces the necessity of following established legal procedures to ensure that requests for public records are handled appropriately. Failure to comply with these procedures can result in the dismissal of complaints, as seen in Gardner's case.

Looking ahead, Gardner may have the option to appeal this decision, although the court did not provide specific details on that possibility. There may also be related cases pending that could further clarify public records access and the requirements for filing complaints in Ohio.

As public interest in transparency and access to government records continues to grow, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding and adhering to legal processes when seeking information from public officials.