Ohio court orders Hamilton County clerk to rescind public records policy

CINCINNATI (CN) — Pavan Parikh, Hamilton County clerk of courts, must allow public, online access to all residential eviction cases regardless of the age of the case, the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

In their decision, the appeals judges found that Parikh had overstepped his authority and improperly limited transparency by imposing a three-year cutoff.

The 12 judges on the Hamilton County Municipal Court had objected to a 2022 policy implemented by Parikh, a Democrat, that limited offsite public access to residential eviction filings older than three years. But Parikh refused to rescind the policy, saying all records were still available to the public at the courthouse in Cincinnati.

Parikh defended the policy as a way to protect the public from being denied employment or housing based on record searches by employers and landlords. His website included a disclaimer to visitors that “a clerk of court is not required to offer remote access to a particular file or case document.”

In October 2023, the judges issued an administrative order requiring Parikh to comply with local rules of civil procedure and rescind his offending policy under threat of contempt. But the clerk pushed back, filing a petition for a writ of prohibition.

The judges then filed a counterclaim for a writ of mandamus, hoping to force the clerk’s hand. On Friday, the First District Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, granting that motion and ordering Parikh to stop the policy.

“The judges have the clear legal right to prevent the clerk from usurping a judicial power conferred specifically and exclusively on the judges,” Judge Robin Piper wrote in the opinion.

“This case … is about the clerk’s desire to restrict remote online access to entire judicial proceedings on the premise that he was protecting litigants (who had not requested any such protection),” Piper continued. “Yet, the judges possess the sole authority to restrict public access to court records.”

Piper emphasized that judges — not the clerk — have the final say regarding access to court records, including when individuals request certain documents be sealed.

“Here, the clerk overreached to exercise a judicial function en masse** specifically conferred to the judges, without having the power or right to do so, without any such party seeking relief, and without any evidence being brought forth to justify such restriction,” she said.

The Twelfth District appeals court judges, sitting by assignment on the First District, took Parikh to task for “anointing” himself the arbiter of public records access. They criticized his decision to place the needs of some litigants ahead of the courts’ duties of public record-keeping and disclosure.

“The courts serve all of the people, not designated, select groups,” Piper said. “In fulfillment of that service, the judges’ concerns for clarity as to what records are available, the public’s accessibility, and the transparency in court proceedings is not misplaced. These fundamental principles, quite naturally, are rightfully guarded by the courts.”

Piper pointed out that Parikh’s reliance on local rules of superintendence as a defense for the policy was misplaced, as those rules are superseded by Ohio statutory laws that require a clerk to “follow orders from the judges.”

The panel also rejected Parikh’s petition for a writ of prohibition against the municipal court judges, ruling they acted within their authority when they issued the initial administrative order. They also said the clerk also had an adequate remedy via direct appeal of any contempt order.

Attorney Linda Woeber with the Cincinnati firm Montgomery Jonson represented the municipal court judges during the case.

“We agree with the Court of Appeals decision on this very important matter of public access to court records,” she said in a statement to Courthouse News. “We appreciate the clarity of the appeals court’s directive to the Clerk of Courts. Court records belong to the public."

Attorneys representing Parikh did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Courthouse News is currently involved in federal litigation against Parikh for timely access to newly filed complaints in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. Both parties in that case have submitted briefings in support of motions for summary judgment following a federal judge’s refusal to dismiss the case.

Follow @kkoeninger44