The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued an opinion ending an ongoing dispute between the Judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court and the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, Pavan Parikh. The result is more transparency for the Municipal Court's docket.
Ohio's Municipal Courts have limited jurisdiction. They hear civil cases where the amount in controversy doesn't exceed $15,000, traffic cases, misdemeanors and evictions. Parikh's case concerned the eviction docket. In May 2022, Parikh issued a policy eliminating remote online access to court records in residential-eviction cases older than three years from the date of judgment satisfaction. The purpose of the policy was to prevent members of the public, such as employers and landlords, from inappropriately relying on court documents when considering employment, housing, and other needs of individuals. According to Parikh, "these online inquiries led to misidentification of parties with similar names and produced inaccurate and unfair results that harmed citizens." The hard copies of the records would remain available at the courthouse, but that would require a trip downtown, which would no doubt limit the number of inquiries.
Initially, the Municipal Court Judges didn't seem to object to the policy, but they wanted Parikh to place a disclaimer on the clerk’s-office website notifying the public "that a remote search for eviction records would not include eviction actions that are greater than three years of age."
Parikh refused, although he told the judges that he would place on the website a different, more general, disclaimer stating: "Pursuant to Rule 45(C) of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, a clerk of court is not required to offer remote access to a particular case file or case document. If you believe a case file or particular document exists but is not available online, please visit the Clerk’s Office or submit an online request for a copy of the specific record you are attempting to obtain."
Unsatisfied with that language, Judges issued an administrative order which, among other things, ordered Parikh to rescind his May 2022 policy "so as to restore open and transparent public access to Court records." You may anticipate where this is headed. Parikh did not comply with the order, and the judges informed him in March 2024 that he could be held in contempt of court if he did not change the clerk’s office website in compliance with the order.
Relying on the strategy that the best defense is a good offense, Parikh filed a petition for writ of prohibition in the First District Court of Appeals. He asked that court to prohibit the Municipal Court judges from holding him in contempt. The Judges responded by filing their own counterclaim, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Parikh to rescind the May, 2022 order. All of the First District Appeals judges recused themselves, so three judges from the 12th Appellate District heard the case, and sided with the Municipal Court Judges. Parikh appealed to the Supreme Court. His luck did not change there.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that the Municipal Court Judges had the authority to order Parikh to rescind his May, 2022 policy. The Supreme Court looked to an Ohio statute that states: "[t]he clerk shall do all of the following: file and safely keep all journals, records, books, and papers belonging or appertaining to the court; record the proceedings of the court; perform all other duties that the judges of the court may prescribe; and keep a book showing all receipts and disbursements, which book shall be open for public inspection at all times."
Specifically, the Supreme Court focused on the part of the statute that requires the Clerk to "perform all other duties that the judges of the court may prescribe." While Parikh argued that he had discretion on what records to place online, the Supreme Court found that his discretion ended in the face of the administrative order.
Parikh had no choice but to put his fight over the authority of judges in the hands of . . . judges. He clearly did not have the home court advantage.
