The Ohio Court of Claims issued a ruling on August 31, 2026, in the case of Kristin Allen v. City of Sidney, case number 2026-00233PQ. The court addressed a public records dispute involving Allen's request for documents related to a data center development project. The decision impacts how public records are accessed in Ohio, particularly concerning trade secrets.
In this case, Kristin Allen, the requester, alleged that the City of Sidney violated Ohio public records law by denying her access to certain documents related to the project. The court's ruling affects not only Allen but also the City of Sidney and Amazon Data Services, Inc., which intervened in the case.
The dispute began when Allen filed a complaint on March 16, 2026, claiming that the City failed to provide public records as required by Ohio law. The City of Sidney responded by denying the request, citing that some documents were considered trade secrets. A special master was appointed to mediate the dispute, but mediation was unsuccessful, leading to further proceedings.
On May 26, 2026, Amazon Data Services, Inc. sought to intervene in the case, arguing that the requested records should not be disclosed due to their sensitive nature. The City of Sidney also filed a motion to dismiss Allen's complaint, asserting that her claims were moot or prohibited under Ohio law.
After reviewing the evidence, the special master recommended that the City had correctly withheld certain documents as trade secrets but failed to provide other requested records in a timely manner. The special master suggested that the City should reimburse Allen for her filing fee and cover the costs of the case.
On August 5, 2026, the City of Sidney filed objections to the special master's recommendations, arguing that the findings regarding the timeliness of document production were incorrect. The City contended that it had provided the requested documents in a reasonable timeframe and that the special master's report did not accurately reflect the circumstances surrounding the case.
The court ruled that the City of Sidney's objections lacked merit and upheld the special master's recommendation regarding the reimbursement of Allen's costs. The court also found that the City did not provide the development agreement and water and sewer agreement within a reasonable time.
The court stated, "Because R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) does not permit a party to partially join another party’s objections and... Amazon Data Services, Inc.’s partial joinder... is improper."
Judge Lisa L. Sadler presided over the case and made the final ruling. The court concluded that the City was required to produce drafts of the requested agreements subject to lawful redactions, even if they were only in draft form. The court emphasized that the timeliness of public records production is crucial and that public offices must respond promptly to requests.
The ruling has significant implications for public records access in Ohio, particularly concerning the disclosure of documents related to development projects. It reinforces the requirement for public offices to respond to records requests within a reasonable timeframe and clarifies the standards for determining what constitutes a trade secret.
The decision may set a precedent for future cases involving public records requests, especially in situations where sensitive information is involved. It highlights the importance of transparency in government dealings while balancing the need to protect proprietary information.
As for what’s next, the City of Sidney may choose to appeal the decision, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeal. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could further clarify the application of public records laws in Ohio.