A dispute over public records access between judges of the Hamilton County, Ohio Municipal Court and Hamilton County Clerk of Court Pavan Parikh was the subject of a recent decision by the Ohio First District Court of Appeals. The case, styled State ex rel. Parikh v. Hon. Josh Berkowitz, et al., concerned a 2022 policy implemented by Parikh that eliminated remote online access to court records in residential eviction cases older than three years from the date of judgment satisfaction. According to the First District, Parikh enacted the policy to “prevent certain members of the public, being primarily employers and landlords, from potentially relying upon court documents in considering fulfilling employment, housing, and other potential opportunities to individuals.” The court noted, however, that the records would remain available through in-person requests.
When the municipal court judges, who preside over such cases, learned of the policy, they requested that Parikh rescind it. Parikh refused, instead offering to add a disclaimer informing the public that he was not required to make records available for remote online access and that additional records not available through the clerk’s website might still be obtained from the clerk’s office. This stance prompted the judges to issue an administrative order directing Parikh to rescind the policy and restore online access to the records. In response, Parikh initiated litigation against the judges, seeking a ruling that their administrative order exceeded their authority. The judges countered with a claim for a writ of mandamus compelling Parikh to rescind the policy and comply with their order.
It is rare for a court to resolve a power struggle between judges and the clerk responsible for administering their court, but that is precisely what the First District was called upon to do. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the three-judge panel ruled in favor of the municipal court judges, ordering Parikh to rescind his policy and comply with their administrative order. In its decision, the court explained:
[T]he Judges have the clear legal right to prevent the Clerk from usurping a judicial power conferred specifically and exclusively on the Judges. This case is not truly about the Clerk’s decision to initially provide remote online access in eviction cases, but rather 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). Yet, the Judges possess the sole authority to restrict public access to court records, as is part of their inherent authority as well as provided by Sup.R. 45(E).
To eliminate any doubt about the clerk of court’s authority to enact policies conflicting with judicial directives, the First District further noted:
“The Clerk only has the powers conferred upon it by statute, and those powers are ministerial, not judicial, in nature. Nothing in Sup.R. 44-47, nor in anything cited by the Clerk, provides the Clerk with the authority to restrict the public’s access to case documents or negates the Judges’ supervisory power over the Municipal Court’s records and files.”
Parikh’s policy may have been well-intentioned and arguably consistent with Ohio law regarding the clerk’s obligation to provide online access to records. However, making public access more difficult—even if not impossible—implicates the public’s right to know how their courts function, a right protected by both the Ohio Constitution and the First Amendment. Leaving such decisions in the hands of the judges responsible for adjudicating the cases that generate these records reflects sound policy. It ensures decisions are made with due regard for both individual rights and the public’s interest in transparency.