The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving public records requests made by Elliot P. Forhan, a representative in the Ohio House of Representatives. The court's decision, rendered on September 30, 2026, affirms a lower court's judgment that partially granted Forhan's requests for documents related to an investigation into his conduct. This ruling has implications for transparency and accountability within state government.
The case, Forhan v. Ohio House of Representatives (No. 25AP-895), stems from Forhan's April 2024 request for the full investigation file regarding allegations of inappropriate behavior. These allegations were detailed in a report produced by the law firm Perez and Morris, which investigated claims of erratic and aggressive conduct by Forhan. The court's ruling is particularly important as it addresses the balance between public access to records and the protections afforded to certain types of documents.
Background
Elliot P. Forhan, the plaintiff-appellee in this case, is a member of the Ohio House of Representatives. His request for public records was initiated after a report was generated by the law firm Perez and Morris, which investigated allegations of misconduct against him. The report, dated March 15, 2024, outlined various incidents involving Forhan, leading to disciplinary actions taken by House leadership, including the suspension of his access to the Ohio Statehouse.
Forhan's initial request for documents was made to the House's Chief Legal Counsel, Kevin Stanek. While the House complied with some aspects of his request, it refused to release interview notes taken during the investigation, citing a personal notes exception under Ohio law. This refusal led Forhan to file a public records access complaint against the House in June 2025, seeking the release of the withheld documents.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Leland, ultimately ruled in favor of Forhan regarding the drafts of the investigation reports but sided with the House concerning the interview notes. The court stated, "The House has failed to carry its burden to establish that the drafts were either trial preparation records or materials protected by the attorney-client privilege." This ruling indicates that the drafts of the reports are considered public records under Ohio law.
However, the court upheld the House's decision to withhold the interview notes, concluding that they fell under the personal notes exception. The court referenced previous case law, stating that personal notes taken by public officials for their own convenience do not qualify as public records. The court emphasized that the interview notes were not required to be maintained and were not accessed by others, thus affirming the House's position.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for public access to records in Ohio. It reinforces the principle that while public officials must be held accountable, there are limitations on what constitutes a public record. The court's decision clarifies that personal notes taken by attorneys during investigations do not automatically qualify for public disclosure, even when they pertain to matters of public interest.
The ruling also highlights the ongoing tension between transparency and confidentiality in government investigations. By affirming the House's right to withhold certain documents, the court sets a precedent that could impact future public records requests, particularly those involving sensitive information or investigations into public officials.
What's Next
Following this ruling, it is unclear whether Forhan will seek to appeal the decision regarding the interview notes. The court's ruling effectively closes the case on the public records request, but Forhan may explore other legal avenues to challenge the findings. As of now, no related cases are pending that would directly impact this ruling.