(12-29-20) A brief was submitted for filing today by the lawyers for Charles Summers to the Ohio Supreme Court in Opposition to the filed Motion for Reconsideration.
- Ohio Supreme Court Asked To Reconsider Summers Decision – ‘turning the public records law into a potentially life-long sword to be used against them’
Portions of the motion…
Relator Charles Summers (“Mr. Summers”) respectfully submits this Memorandum in Opposition to Respondents’ and Intervening Respondent’s Joint Motion for Reconsideration. This Court granted Mr. Summers a Writ of Mandamus on December 10, 2020 with regard to Mr. Summers’ first, second, sixth, eighth, and ninth requests to Fox (except for two interviews), as well as Mr. Summers’ first, second, third, seventh, and eighth requests to Grey (except for the same two interviews). State ex rel. Summers v. Fox, Pros. Atty., et al., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5585, ¶ 89. Respondents and J.K. filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration on December 21, raising no new issues or facts not already raised in over one hundred pages of briefings by Respondents, J.K., and the several amici (including an association ostensibly benefiting every elected prosecutor in the state of Ohio), despite S. Ct. R. Practice 18.02(B)’s mandate that “A motion for reconsideration shall not constitute a reargument of the case….”
Remarkably, Respondents and J.K. now claim this case has not been fully considered, despite having the opportunity to file a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, two Merit Response Briefs, three amici briefs, and a Privilege Log; along with submitting six volumes of evidence under seal and also making their argument orally before this Court. Moreover, Respondents now request that this Court abandon decades of legal precedent, including its recent holding in State ex rel. Caster v. City of Columbus, which emphasized the broad purview of the Public Records Act and the interests of justice inherent in requests related to oversight of the criminal justice system. 151 Ohio St. 3d 425, 2016-Ohio-8394, 89 N.E.3d 598. Respondents’ and J.K.’s Joint Motion for Reconsideration should be denied.