The city of Cincinnati does not have to provide a public records seeker with an explanation of why it initially denied his request for information about a man involved in a chaotic and violent brawl that broke out on a downtown street last summer, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

A Supreme Court majority found the city provided Eugene Utz with the records he requested 11 days after he asked for them and made only minor court-ordered redactions. Utz sought a writ of mandamus from the Court after the city told him he could not have the records until the Hamilton County Municipal Court ruled on the city’s motion to restrict public access to records about the arrest of Alexander Tchervinski.

Days after the hearing on the motion, the city provided Utz with records about Tchervinski. However, Utz pressed the Supreme Court to impose financial sanctions on the city for failing to adequately explain its initial denial of the records. In a per curiam opinion, the Court found that the delivery of the records was sufficient to end the case and to deny issuance of a writ to Utz.

“Thus, even if the city’s initial denials failed to provide an explanation sufficient to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(3), requiring the city to provide such an explanation at this junction would accomplish nothing,” the opinion stated.

Utz has filed a similar complaint against Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Pavan Parikh. The case was orally argued before the Court in May and is pending.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part, stating she would consider Utz’s request for statutory damages and court costs based on the Court’s 2019 State ex rel. Coredell v. Paden decision.

City Pauses Records Request
In July 2025, several videos surfaced of a large fight that broke out among groups of people in downtown Cincinnati. A month later, Utz’s attorney delivered two public records requests to the city and the city solicitor. Utz asked to inspect and be provided copies of all filings and entries in the criminal case related to Tchervinski’s involvement in the incident.

The city denied both requests the same day Utz made them. The next day, Utz’s attorney discussed the request further with the solicitor’s office, which sent an email response.

The city told Utz that it “declines [his] request for copies or the inspection” of the records. The note informed Utz that the city had a pending motion before the municipal court to restrict public access to the records and that a hearing was set for Sept. 8, a Monday.

On the Friday before the hearing, Utz sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, claiming the city failed to comply with the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, by failing to permit prompt inspection or to provide copies of records within a reasonable time. He also claimed the city violated the law by failing to provide an explanation, including legal authority, for denying his requests.

The municipal court conducted the hearing and ultimately ordered limited redactions of Tchervinski’s personally identifying information in the records. The trial court directed the municipal court clerk not to seal records in Tchervinski’s case.

That afternoon, the city provided Utz with copies of the requested records with only the limited redactions ordered by the court. Utz does not dispute the court’s redactions.

Despite receiving the records, Utz continued his request for a Supreme Court order seeking statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs based on the city’s 11-day delay in providing them.

Supreme Court Analyzed Records Law
If a public office provides records after a requester seeks a writ of mandamus, the claim is generally moot, the per curiam opinion explained. Utz acknowledged that his request for the city to turn over the records was moot, but he argued the Court should order the city to provide him with a sufficient explanation for why his request was denied in the first place.

The Court stated that once the city rescinded its blanket denial of the records and provided Utz with records containing only court-ordered redactions, there was no need for the explanation.

Utz maintained that because the city did not provide a valid explanation, he is entitled to statutory damages under the Public Records Act. The opinion noted that under R.C. 149.43(B)(3), if a public office ultimately denies a request, in part or in whole, the office must provide the requester “with an explanation, including legal authority, setting forth why the request was denied.”

Utz asserted that the city never provided legal authority to deny the records while awaiting the municipal court’s consideration of the request to restrict public access. The city maintained it had never denied Utz’s request, but that it was “under legal review” as the city awaited the municipal court’s decision.

The Court explained that damages may be awarded if there is a delay in the release of records that should have been promptly produced. However, a delay in providing an explanation is not grounds for awarding damages, the Court ruled. The opinion noted R.C. 149.43(B)(3) does not require an explanation for a denial to be “prompt.”

The opinion stated that attorney fees may be awarded if the Court orders a public office to comply with a records request or if the public office is found to have acted in bad faith. Noting that the city provided Utz the information the same day the municipal court ruled on what could be released about Tchervinksi’s case, the Court found the city did not act in bad faith. Similarly, the city’s actions did not warrant payment of Utz’s court costs, the Court concluded.

2025-1148. State ex rel. Utz v. Cincinnati, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3805.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.