Ohio VFD Found in Contempt of Court for Failing to Produce Public Records

An Ohio magistrate has recommended that a volunteer fire department be held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order to produce certain financial records as part of a public records request. The Calcutta Volunteer Fire Department had previously been ordered to produce those records as part of a public records suit filed by Christine Lea Lerussi.

On April 14, 2023, Lerussi sought certain records from the Calcutta VFD. When the records were not forthcoming, she filed suit on June 20, 2023 in the Ohio Court of Claims. In a ruling issued on August 30, 2023, Judge Lisa L. Sadler rejected the department’s arguments that the public records law did not apply to it because it is a private non-profit entity. Judge Sadler concluded the public records law applied because Calcutta VFD received public funds. A copy of that decision is included below.

On September 5, 2023, the court ordered the department to produce the requested records. When the department produced some but not all of the requested records, Lerussi sought to have the department held in contempt. A hearing was held on December 4, 2023 before Magistrate Scott Sheets.  Quoting from Magistrate sheet’s decision [note: the decision uses the words Requestor and Respondant – we will substitute the party’s names for purposes of clarity]:

• Lerussi seeks relief pursuant to R.C. 2705.02, which provides, “[a] person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished as for a contempt… (A) Disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment, or command of a court or officer.”
• Contempt can be civil or criminal in nature and “[s]anctions that are ‘designed to benefit the complainant by remedying the contempt or coercing compliance with a court order are civil in nature.'”
• Moreover, the failure of a party to do that which the court has ordered for the benefit of the opposing party is civil contempt.
• The magistrate finds that Lerussi has met her burden and proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Calcutta VFD is in contempt of the court’s September 5, 2023 order.
• Moreover, Calcutta VFD did not present any evidence explaining the deficiencies in its production.
• Based on Lerussi’s testimony and the contents of Exhibit 1, the magistrate finds that Calcutta VFD has failed to produce complete copies of all credit card statements, which Lerussi sought through her April 14, 2023 request and which the court ordered Calcutta VFD to produce in its September 5, 2023 order.
• Thus, Lerussi has established that Calcutta VFD disobeyed a court order and engaged in contemptuous conduct because the credit card statements discussed above exist (having been partially produced), were subject to the Court’s September 5, 2023 order, and have not been fully and completely produced.
• In addition, the magistrate finds that Lerussi’s testimony and the contents of Exhibit 4 establish that Calcutta VFD has failed to produce complete copies of “all cancelled checks written on all of Calcutta VFD’s bank accounts [f]om January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2022” which the court ordered Calcutta VFD to produce in its September 5, 2023 order.
• In short, Lerussi has established that Calcutta VFD disobeyed a court order and engaged in contemptuous conduct because the cancelled checks exist, as they are reflected on monthly statements and other cancelled checks reflected on these same statements were produced, were subject to the Court’s September 5, 2023 order, and have not been fully and completely produced.
• The magistrate RECOMMENDS that the Court GRANT Lerussi’s motion for contempt and find that Calcutta VFD is in contempt of the court’s September 5, 2023 order.
• To allow Calcutta VFD to purge this contempt, the magistrate further RECOMMENDS that Calcutta VFD be ordered to produce the credit card statements reflected in items 1-7 and 14, listed on page 4 and 5 above, as well as all cancelled checks from April, June, and August of 2021 and June of 2022.
• Calcutta VFD should ensure that production is complete.

Here is a copy of the magistrate’s decision:

Here is a copy of judge’s Sadler’s decision from last August.