FOIA - #BlackLivesMatter - PD comms during protests (Columbus Division of Police)

Good afternoon,

This request is overly broad and cannot be completed.

What is An Ambiguous or Overly Broad Request?

An ambiguous request is one that lacks the clarity a public office needs to ascertain what the requester is seeking and where to look for records that might be responsive. The wording of the request is vague or subject to interpretation.[i]

A request can be overly broad when it is so inclusive that the public office is unable to identify the records sought based on the manner in which the office routinely organizes and accesses records. The courts have also found a request overly broad when it seeks what amounts to a complete duplication of a major category of a public office's records. Examples of overly broad requests include requests for:

· All records containing particular names or words;[ii]
· Duplication of all records having to do with a particular topic, or all records of a particular type;[iii]
· Every report filed with the public office for a particular time period (if the office does not organize records in that manner);[iv]
· All emails sent or received by a particular email address with no subject matter and time limitation;[v]
· "[A]ll e-mails between" two employees (when email not organized by sender and recipient).[vi]
· "[A]ll documents which document any and all instances of lead poisoning in the last 15 years in any dwelling owned or operated by [the office]."[vii]

"Overly broad case law: State ex ref. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 133 Ohio St.3d 122, 2012-Ohio-4228 (request for all litigation files and all grievance files for a period over six years, and for all emails between two employees during joint employment); State ex ref. Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St. 3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711 (request for prison quartermaster's orders and receipts for clothing over seven years); State ex ref. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788 (request for all work-related emails, texts, and correspondence of an elected
official during six months in office); State ex ref. Daugherty v. Mohr, 10th Dist. No 11AP-5, 2011-Ohio-6453 (request for all policies,
emails, or memos regarding whether prison officials are authorized to 'triple cell' inmates into segregation); State ex ref. Davila v. Bellefontaine,
3d Dist. No. 8-11-01, 2011-Ohio-4890 (request to inspect 911 tapes covering 15 years); State ex ref. Davila v. East Liverpool, 7th Dist.
No. 10 CO 16, 2011-Ohio-1347, discretionary appeal not allowed 2011-Ohio-4217 (request to access tape recorded 911 calls and
radio traffic over seven years); State ex ref. Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752 (10th Dist. 1989) (request for all accident reports filed on a
given date with two law enforcement agencies).

Also See State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 133 Ohio St.3d 122, 2012-Ohio-4228, ¶ 30 (Public Records Act "does not
expressly require public offices to maintain emails so they can be retrieved by sender and recipient status."); State ex rel. Oriana House v.
Montgomery, 10th Dist. Nos. 04AP-492, 04AP-504, 2005-Ohio-3377, ¶ 89, rev'd on other grounds, 110 Ohio St.3d 456, 2006-Ohio-4854 (the fact
that requester made what it believed to be a specific request does not mandate that the public office keep its records in such a way that access
to the records was possible); State ex rel. Evans v. Parma, 8th Dist. No. 81236, 2003-Ohio-1159. 90 State ex rel. Evans v. Parma, 8th Dist. No. 81236, 2003-Ohio-1159, ¶15 "

Respectfully,

Kathy (Bowling) Hartshorne
Management Analyst I
Public Records Unit
Desk (614) 645-4896
Main (614) 645-4925