The Observation Deck

Mr. Essi

Without going into any detail that could hurt your case for public records I have a question.

It would seem that most of the responses and paperwork you have gotten really comes from two "silos" to quote Mr. Kindt. 1) Thompson Hines in regards to meetings, and 2)Elaine Courey's a consultant emails.

Is that correct, or is that all we are seeing?

Also, is there any reason to believe at this point, that key documents that could better explain this whole debacle have been held back?

.

No.
Yes.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Mr. Essi

Without going into any detail that could hurt your case for public records I have a question...

The records case that I have pursued as State of Ohio, Ex Relator Brian J. Essi v. City of Lakewood is a public records case seeking transparency concerning our local government--since it is about transparency, there are no details I could reveal that could possibly "hurt" the case.

Besides the fact that transparency about a transparency case can't hurt the case, the facts remain that under the Court Orders:

(1) the City was forced to submit a 1,000 page Index of records they produced, redacted, and withheld from the public;

(2) the City Law Director and others were forced submit affidavits certifying the steps they took to locate the records;

(3) several City public officials, including the Mayor and Law Director, were forced to sit for sworn depositions about their alleged search for records and the existence thereof;

(4) the City was forced to produce an additional 27,000 pages of records they had denied existed or refused to produce prior to the Court's Orders.

I could go on with more "details", but I think it is fair to say that the public has "won" its case and it is the prevailing party.

Nothing can be disclosed that could "hurt" that case.

3) several City public officials, including the Mayor and Law Director, were forced to sit for sworn depositions about their alleged search for records and the existence thereof;

As far as I know, you can't just arbitrarily depose people. These depositions must be approved by the judge in the case. So there needs to be a reasonable likelihood that the deposed parties posess important information and that that information is critical to the adjudication of the case.

You have to be astonished at the hubris of these people - their actions have repeatedly led to litigation. Multiple cases that are costing the taxpayers money.