Record · State legislation
Sub. H.B. No. 314, 136th Ohio General Assembly — As Passed by the House. Amends R.C. 149.43 (Ohio Public Records Act) to restrict "harassing or disruptive" records requests and to let public offices engage private contractors to answer "voluminous" requests.
hb314-149-43
provenance
- source data/documents/legal/records-legislation/hb314_02_PH.pdf
- canonical ohio-sub-hb314-136ga-as-passed-house-149-43-2026.pdf
- sha256 1465f0aa947445c7df341ec1610ce71ead6f9f3de8627ca4012d8f7693fbf1c9
- pages 48
- content_verified 2026-07-22
- version As Passed by the House
- general_assembly 136th (2025-2026)
- note Provision reads are tagged [verified] — they trace to the cited division/page of the bill text. The relevance-to-the-relator synthesis is tagged [inference]; unresolved questions are [open]. Strike/underline amendatory markup is lost in the text layer; verify exact new-vs-existing wording against the source PDF and against existing R.C. 149.43 before quoting in a filing.
versions_ingested
- version As Introduced
- file data/documents/legal/records-legislation/hb314_00_IN.pdf
- sha256 8190af27093c8add2431ea0433eab6c1e821c0e8a44db1e61cedb9cc25720c77
- pages 42
- bill H.B. No. 314
- cosponsors 0
- version As Passed by the House
- file data/documents/legal/records-legislation/hb314_02_PH.pdf
- sha256 1465f0aa947445c7df341ec1610ce71ead6f9f3de8627ca4012d8f7693fbf1c9
- pages 48
- bill Sub. H.B. No. 314
- cosponsors 6
substitute_changes
- tiered_fee_schedule_added
- tag verified
- change hours-tier-fee-schedule-added
- division (B)(1)(b)
- introduced No hours-based fee schedule anywhere in the introduced text (0 textual hits).
- passed NEW: a POLITICAL SUBDIVISION may, instead of copies at cost, charge a fee tiered on the total "hours to produce" per request: 1-10 hours NO CHARGE; 11-20 hours up to $25; 21-30 up to $50; 31-40 up to $100; more than 40 hours up to $200. Paired with a new fee-estimate duty ((B)(1)(c): the office must provide each requester an estimate of the fee) and the new (A)(23) "hours to produce" definition (which counts private-contractor hours).
- direction mixed
- tag verified
- change anti-splitting-combination-power-added
- division (B)(1)(b)
- passed NEW: if the office has a reasonable basis to suspect a requester split related requests to duck the fee tiers, it may COMBINE the requests' hours in calculating the fee.
- direction office-protective
- tag verified
- change unreasonable-combination-aggrieved-ground-added
- division (C)(1)
- passed NEW counterweight: an "unreasonable combination of the person's requests for the purpose of calculating fees under division (B)(1)(b)" is itself an enumerated ground of aggrievement feeding the complaint/mandamus paths.
- direction requester-protective
- harassing_or_disruptive_action
- tag verified
- change prospective-ban-capped
- division (B)(2)(c)(iii)
- introduced A future-request order "remains in force INDEFINITELY unless the order provides for its expiration after a specified period of time."
- passed The order runs "for a period of up to FIVE YEARS"; a request in violation lets the court extend it for a period at the court's discretion.
- direction requester-protective
- tag verified
- change anonymous-circumvention-fine-added
- division (B)(2)(c)(iii)
- passed NEW: a person who submits a request anonymously to circumvent an order may be fined up to $100 per violation.
- direction office-protective
- tag verified
- change requester-fee-shift-added
- division (B)(2)(c)(iv)
- introduced No fee recovery for a requester who defeats the office's action.
- passed NEW (B)(2)(c)(iv): if the court finds the requests were NOT intended to harass or disrupt, it MAY award the requester reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses against the office that sued (subject to R.C. 9.86). This inserted a new clause and renumbered the exemptions list from introduced (iv) to passed (v).
- direction requester-protective
- voluminous_contractor_route
- tag verified
- change fee-cap-added
- division (B)(6)(b)(i)
- introduced Office "may include the cost of the contractor's services in calculating the cost involved in providing the copy" — no explicit ceiling.
- passed NEW ceiling: including contractor cost "does not permit" charging "a fee in excess of the highest permissible fee" in the existing fee structure.
- direction requester-protective
- tag verified
- change contractor-duties-clause-added
- division (B)(6)(b)(ii)
- passed NEW: the contractor must promptly dispose of copies, return originals, not use the records for profit outside the engagement, and not disclose redacted information.
- direction guardrail
- victim_video_fee_waiver_and_renumbering
- tag verified
- change victim-video-fee-waiver-inserted
- division (B)(11)
- introduced Absent (the video-cost machinery — $75/hr, $750 cap — was in both versions, but with no victim waiver).
- passed NEW (B)(11): law enforcement / prosecutors shall not charge the video-record preparation fee when the requester is the victim (or the victim's counsel or insurer), on an affidavit that the video is used to investigate the harm.
- direction requester-protective
- tag verified
- change stale-cross-references-left-behind
- division (B)(2)(c)(vii) and (A)(1)(ccc)
- finding A DRAFTING ERROR in the as-passed text. Inserting the new (B)(11) waiver pushed the public-defender request-for-evidence division from introduced (B)(11) to passed (B)(12) — but (B)(2)(c)(vii) (the pre-suit evidence-demand gate) and (A)(1)(ccc) (the non-public status of evidence produced) still cite "division (B)(11)", which in the as-passed text is the victim video fee waiver. Read literally, both provisions now point at the wrong division; the evidence division's own text ((B)(12)) says "pursuant to this division." Watch whether the Senate corrects the references.
- net_read
- tag inference
- note The committee did far more than balance the harass/disrupt action at the edges. It added an entire hours-tier fee schedule for political subdivisions — free under 10 hours, a payable meter up to $200/request above that, with an anti-splitting combination power — which is the fee structure the contractor costs feed and the concrete meaning of the (B)(6)(b) "highest permissible fee" cap. On the harass/disrupt action it softened the worst edge (indefinite ban → 5-year cap) and added a fee-shift for a wrongly-sued requester, while adding anti-circumvention teeth. The tolling provision (B)(2)(c)(ii) — the sharpest lever against the corpus's delay theory — was present in BOTH versions and survived unchanged.
bill
- number Sub. H.B. No. 314
- title To amend section 149.43 of the Revised Code to restrict harassing or disruptive public records requests and permit private contractors to respond to voluminous public records requests.
- primary_sponsors
- Rep. Isaacsohn
- Rep. Ray
- cosponsors
- Rep. Abrams
- Rep. Brennan
- Rep. Miller, J.
- Rep. Russo
- Rep. Schmidt
- Rep. Young
- vehicle Substitute bill; amends R.C. 149.43 in full and (Section 2) repeals the existing section — the standard amendatory form, not a wholesale rewrite of the Act.
new_mechanisms
- harassing_or_disruptive_action
- tag verified
- division (B)(2)(c)
- location bill body ≈ printed pp. 28-30 (PDF pp. 27-29)
- summary Creates an affirmative court action FOR the public office. Where a requester submits multiple related or unrelated requests to the same office and, based on the VOLUME or the REPEATED NATURE of the requests, the office "has reason to believe" they are intended to harass the office or to disrupt its essential functions, the office may sue the requester in common pleas court (county where the office is located) to limit or deny the requests.
- mechanics
- Proceeds as an ordinary civil action under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure; the requester gets notice and an opportunity to be heard. [(B)(2)(c)(ii)]
- TOLLING: while the action or any appeal is pending, the office's duty to respond to the requests is tolled. [(B)(2)(c)(ii)]
- On a preponderance finding of harass/disrupt intent, the court may limit or deny the requests. [(B)(2)(c)(iii)]
- If the court also finds the requester likely to submit future harassing/disrupting requests, it may enjoin future requests to that office for up to FIVE YEARS; a violation can extend the order. [(B)(2)(c)(iii)]
- A person who requests anonymously to circumvent such an order may be fined up to $100 per violation. [(B)(2)(c)(iii)]
- requester_fee_shift
- tag verified
- division (B)(2)(c)(iv)
- summary If the court determines the requests were NOT intended to harass or disrupt, it MAY award the requester (against the office that sued) reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses incurred in the action — discretionary ("may"), and subject to R.C. 9.86 (immunity).
- exemptions_from_the_action
- tag verified
- division (B)(2)(c)(v)-(vii)
- does_not_apply_to
- A journalist as defined in (B)(9)(c).
- A pro se litigant requesting records pertaining to litigation in which the pro se litigant is a NAMED PARTY.
- A state agency / public college or university / public defender / other government attorney (and their staff/agents), with a carve-back for a public defender's non-work-scope requests.
- guardrails
- No court shall limit, deny, or restrict a listed requester's access under this division. [(B)(2)(c)(vi)]
- An office may not bring the action against a known/suspected public defender unless the requester fails to answer a (B)(11) request for evidence within 5 business days. [(B)(2)(c)(vii)]
- evidence_demand
- division (B)(12) as passed (introduced (B)(11))
- note The demand-documentary-evidence power is PUBLIC-DEFENDER-SPECIFIC — an office that knows/believes a requester is a public defender may require proof the records relate to the defender's work scope; attorney-client / work-product materials cannot be compelled, and the evidence produced is itself non-public ((A)(1)(ccc)). There is NO general power to demand proof that a requester falls within the other exemptions (journalist, pro se). CAUTION: the bill's own cross-references in (B)(2)(c)(vii) and (A)(1)(ccc) still say "(B)(11)" — which, as passed, is the victim video fee waiver — a renumbering artifact of the substitute (see substitute_changes.victim_video_fee_waiver_and_renumbering).
- private_contractor_for_voluminous_requests
- tag verified
- division (B)(6)(b)
- location bill body ≈ printed pp. 31-32 (PDF pp. 30-31)
- summary If a request is "voluminous and it is therefore reasonable to do so," the office may engage a private contractor to respond — INCLUDING making required redactions — on the office's behalf, and may include the contractor's services in the cost to produce the records.
- mechanics
- Fee cap: including contractor cost may NOT push the fee above the highest permissible fee in the (B)(1)(b) hours-tier structure — concretely, $200/request for a political subdivision. [(B)(6)(b)(i)]
- Contractor duties: promptly dispose of copies, return originals, not use records for profit outside the engagement, and not disclose redacted information. [(B)(6)(b)(ii)]
- 'Hours to produce' (A)(23) — the meter the (B)(1)(b) fee tiers run on — expressly includes hours worked by a private contractor engaged under (B)(6)(b).
- In the promptness/mandamus inquiry, a court SHALL NOT consider whether engaging a private contractor would have produced records faster. [bill body ≈ printed p. 23 / PDF p. 22]
- tiered_fee_schedule_for_political_subdivisions
- tag verified
- division (B)(1)(b)-(c) + (A)(23) + (C)(1)
- location bill body ≈ printed pp. 24-25; added by the committee substitute (absent from the introduced text)
- summary A political subdivision may, INSTEAD of providing copies at cost, charge a fee tiered on the total "hours to produce" the request: 1-10 hours no charge; 11-20 up to $25; 21-30 up to $50; 31-40 up to $100; over 40 hours up to $200. "Hours to produce" ((A)(23)) counts employee AND engaged-contractor hours.
- mechanics
- Anti-splitting: on a reasonable basis to suspect a requester split related requests to duck the tiers, the office may combine the requests' hours in calculating the fee. [(B)(1)(b)]
- Fee estimate: an office adopting the schedule must give each requester an estimate of the fee. [(B)(1)(c)]
- Counterweight: an 'unreasonable combination' of requests for fee-calculation purposes is an enumerated ground of aggrievement in (C)(1) — it feeds the complaint/mandamus paths.
unchanged_load_bearing_provisions
- tag verified
- division (C)(3)
- location ≈ printed p. 40 (PDF p. 39)
- finding The statutory-damages engine is intact: $100 per business day of non-compliance with a (B) obligation, from the day the requester files a mandamus action, to a $1,000 cap; injury "conclusively presumed"; "not a penalty" but compensation for lost use. The mandamus remedy the corpus is pursuing survives this bill.
- tag verified
- division (C)(1)(b)
- finding The mandamus path (aggrieved requester → writ + court costs + statutory damages, attorney's fees available) remains the requester's mechanism. HB 314 adds a SEPARATE, office-initiated (B) action; it does not replace division (C).
related
- R.C. 149.43 — the amended statute; corpus refs in docs/legal/mandamus-analysis.md
- docs/legal/mandamus-analysis.md — the PRR mandamus this bill's (B) mechanisms bear on
- data/extracted/legal/select-committee-2026/ — the parallel 136th-GA data-center hearing record (HB 184 / R.C. 9.66(D) is the sibling confidentiality lever)
Where it connects
legal/records-legislation/hb314-149-43.digest.yaml · — · legal