The Supreme Court of Ohio recently affirmed an appellate-court decision to make older court records in residential-eviction cases once again searchable on the Hamilton County clerk of courts website.

Justices unanimously ruled that the First District Court of Appeals determination that Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Pavan Parikh’s desire to restrict online access to certain judicial proceedings on the premise that he was protecting litigants infringed on a judge’s authority to make such a decision.

“Parikh had previously placed the records of all eviction cases online,” the high court wrote per curiam. “He then removed the records of eviction cases that were more than three years old, making a policy decision that the privacy rights of the defendants outweighed the public’s right to know about the cases.”

In his capacity as clerk of Hamilton County Municipal Court, Parikh issued in May 2022 a policy to eliminate remote online access to court records in residential-eviction cases older than three years from the date of judgment satisfaction, case background provided.

The stated purpose of the policy was to prevent members of the public, such as employers and landlords, from inappropriately relying on court documents in consideration of employment, housing or other needs of an individual.

“It was and remains the belief of the clerk’s office that these online inquiries led to misidentification of parties with similar names and produced inaccurate and unfair results that harmed citizens,” Parikh had explained.

The policy permitted access to the specific records in person at the clerk’s office during regular business hours, summary detailed.

Municipal court judges objected to the policy and asked Parikh to place a disclaimer on the clerk’s website to notify the public “that a remote search for eviction records would not include eviction actions that are greater than three years of age.”

Parikh refused, but told the judges he would place on the website a different, more general, disclaimer, summary provided.

Unsatisfied, the judges in October 2023 issued an administrative order directing Parikh to comply with state and local rules regarding online public access to certain records and to rescind the May 2022 policy.

Parikh did not comply, 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 website in compliance with the order.

The clerk of courts responded by filing a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the First District Court of Appeals, summary continued.

In the complaint, Parikh requested a writ to prevent the judges from enforcing their order and from holding him in contempt.

In their response, the judges made a counterclaim, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Parikh to rescind the policy and otherwise comply with the administrative order.

The judges moved for judgment on the pleadings on Parikh’s prohibition complaint, and Parikh moved to dismiss the judges’ mandamus counterclaim.

The appellate court issued an opinion, granting the judges’ writ ordering Parikh to rescind the policy and to comply with their administrative order.

Parikh subsequently appealed.

Recognizing that municipal courts have statutory authority to direct municipal court clerks to perform duties prescribed by municipal court judges, the Supreme Court determined that the judges’ order related to Parikh’s attempt to restrict public access to the municipal court’s public records was within the judges’ statutory authority.

“Parikh takes issue with a portion of (the administrative order) that does not directly pertain to online access to eviction-case records,” the court wrote. “The order merely requests that Parikh consult with the judges, in contrast to other tasks that it orders Parikh to do. Because this part of the administrative order is phrased as a request, this part of the order is not mandatory. Therefore, Parikh need not comply with this part of the order to comply with the writ of mandamus issued by the court of appeals.”