County court clerk blasts judges' rules on public access to eviction records

COLUMBUS, Ohio (CN) — The Ohio Legislature is the sole source of power granted to municipal courts and their judges, who lack jurisdiction to issue orders to court clerks about record maintenance, according to a brief filed by Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Pavan Parikh.

Parikh, a Democrat re-elected to his position in the 2024 election cycle, is embroiled in a legal battle with the Hamilton County Municipal Court and its 15 judges over access to eviction records.

In a reply brief filed Tuesday with the Ohio Supreme Court, the clerk argued the judges cannot expand their own authority through self-made rules and are limited by the Ohio Legislature.

“The municipal court is a court of limited, statutory jurisdiction. Its powers may not be expanded through judicially created case law. This case requires the court to define and preserve that constitutionally grounded balance of statutory and judicial authority,” Parikh said.

The case stems from a policy adopted by the clerk in 2022 that prevented the public from remotely accessing evictions older than three years.

In response, the municipal court filed for and was granted a writ of mandamus that required Parikh to rescind the policy and publish all eviction records on its website.

The clerk appealed to the state high court, but was denied a stay that would have allowed his policy to remain in effect.

The parties filed opposing briefs in December and January, and Parikh emphasized in his most recent brief his office already complies with the local rules of procedure regarding public document access.

“The judges’ ‘concern’ regarding a burden on public access to case information [does not] support mandamus relief. First, there is no evidence in the record to support such a claim. Second, and more critical here, the merits of the policy are not at issue: the only issue is who is authorized to create and implement court record policies that otherwise comply with all legal requirements,” he said.

The clerk described the judges’ legal action as a power grab that seeks to wrest control from his office and grant themselves total authority over public documents.

Parikh pointed out the differences between common pleas and municipal courts under Ohio law and reiterated municipal court judges have extremely limited powers.

“Ultimately, for a municipal court, the strictly limited ‘inherent’ authority under Ohio case law extends only to exercising contempt to give effect to judgments in cases pending before the court, or to ensuring internal funding and operation to preserve the court’s continued existence,” Parikh said in the brief.

Parikh cited the local rules of superintendence and pointed out his office is required only to provide “direct public access” to documents, while remote access to any document is entirely optional.

He urged the Ohio Supreme Court to both overturn the mandamus relief granted to the municipal court and grant his request for a writ of prohibition to prevent further interference by its judges.

Parikh argued the order limiting access is unsupported by any statutory authority and plainly exceeds the scope of the judges’ rulemaking power.

“Administrative Order No. 23-45 is not a ‘rule,’ it did not go through the prescribed rulemaking process, and it in fact conflicts with the existing rules of both the municipal court and this court. The power to adopt or revise rules relating to court administration cannot possibly authorize the administrative order in this case,” he said.

Parikh also filed a [motion](http://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.) to request oral arguments in the case, but no date has been set.

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 briefing in support of motions for summary judgment following a federal judge’s refusal to dismiss the case.

Follow @kkoeninger44