Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliance & Integrity

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 890
• Docket Number: 25AP-304

• Judges: Jamison

• Opinion

• Authorities (14)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (6.9K)

• PDF

Syllabus

The Court of Claims did not exceed the scope of our remand from the direct appeal in this matter. The judgment entry issued by the Court of Claims on remand was limited to the issue of Family Education Rights and Privacy Act redactions. Despite appellant's claims to the contrary, the Court of Claims judgment entry issued after our remand did not vacate prior binding rulings. Additionally, any of appellant's claims regarding unresolved issues could have been raised in the direct appeal and therefore are barred by res judicata. Appellant failed to establish that the Court of Claims erred in entering final judgment prior to appellee's full production of public records. By the plain language of R.C. 2743.75(F)(3), the cost recovery provision in subsection (b) did not apply because an appeal was taken from the Court of Claims final order. Appellant's claim that the trial court permitted improper redactions could not be considered because it relied upon appellee's record productions that occurred after the judgment entry at issue, and were therefore outside of the record on appeal. Judgment affirmed.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliance & Integrity, 2026-Ohio-890.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Farnaz Maleky, :

Requester-Appellant, :
No. 25AP-304
v. : (Ct. of Cl. No. 2023-00637PQ)

Ohio State University, Office of : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
[Compliance] and Integrity,
:
Respondent-Appellee.
:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on March 17, 2026

On brief: Farnaz Maleky, pro se. Argued: Farnaz Maleky.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Regina J. Mendicino
Dwyer, and Elizabeth H. Smith, for appellee. Argued:
Elizabeth H. Smith

APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio

JAMISON, J.
{¶ 1} Requester-appellant, Farnaz Maleky, appeals from the February 21, 2025
judgment entry of the Court of Claims of Ohio entering judgment in favor of respondent-
appellee, Ohio State University, Office of Compliance and Integrity (“OSU”), following
remand from this court. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of
Claims.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} This matter is before this court on appeal from the judgment entry issued by
the Court of Claims following our remand of the matter in Maleky v. Ohio State Univ.,
No. 25AP-304 2

Office of Compliance & Integrity, 2024-Ohio-5825 (10th Dist.). In that decision, we set
forth the facts and procedural history of this case. We stated:

On September 28, 2023, Maleky filed a complaint purportedly
signed by attorney Fred Gittes alleging violations of the Ohio
Public Records Act pursuant to R.C. 149.43 and 2743.75(D).
According to the complaint, OSU received two records
requests, one on September 22, and another on October 4,
2022. The complaint noted OSU partially redacted some of the
records in its response to these requests, resulting in
allegations that it failed to fully comply with the requests. On
October 5, 2023, Gittes informed the [Court of Claims] he did
not represent Maleky and that his name was placed on the
public records complaint without his knowledge or
authorization. On October 6, 2023, Maleky filed a pro se
complaint, and the court’s special master then ordered the
dismissal of Gittes as a party to the case. On October 30, 2023,
Maleky filed a document describing her public records
requests, and on January 5, 2024, the special master
interpreted that filing as an amended complaint. OSU moved
to dismiss the original September 28, 2023 complaint on
November 7, 2023.
On February 15, 2024, after the [Court of Claims] remanded an
initial report and recommendation back to the special master,
the special master filed a supplemental report and
recommendation. That filing determined Maleky had been a
faculty member at OSU before accusations of misconduct
caused OSU to investigate and ultimately impose sanctions
against Maleky. The special master concluded OSU was
required to provide Maleky with unredacted copies of the
requested records, and the court overruled all objections and
adopted the supplemental report and recommendation. In
overruling OSU’s objection that asserted the Family Education
Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) mandated the redaction of
personally identifiable student information from the records
prior to their release, the court cited Ellis v. Cleveland Mun.
School Dist., 309 F.Supp.2d 1019 (N.D. Ohio 2004) for the
proposition that FERPA does not prevent the disclosure of the
names of victims. The court also cited State ex rel. Carr. v.
Akron, . . . 2006-Ohio-6714, . . . as a reminder that exceptions
to the disclosure of records under the Public Records Act, R.C.
149.43, are strictly construed against the record custodian and
that only upon showing a record falls “within certain exceptions
to disclosure” can the custodian withhold it. Carr at ¶ 30, citing
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, . . . 2004-
Ohio-6557, ¶ 23 . . . In sum, the [Court of Claims] rejected
No. 25AP-304 3

OSU’s contention that FERPA demanded the redaction of
students’ personally identifiable information in this instance,
thereby requiring OSU to release all requested records without
redaction.
Maleky at ¶ 2-3.
{¶ 3} OSU appealed, alleging the following assignment of error:
The Court of Claims erred when it held that student
information contained in employee disciplinary records cannot
be redacted under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
(“FERPA”) when those records are requested under the Ohio
Public Records Act.
Id. at ¶ 5.
{¶ 4} Maleky also appealed and alleged two cross-assignments of error:

[I.] The Judge’s Supplementary Decision and Final Entry
issued on March 27, 2024 [Exhibit A], only provided page
numbers referencing the under-seal in-camera documents
submitted by the Respondent of that case. Since as the
Requester of that case I do not have access to the title or subject
of each in-camera page, it is challenging to identify the
documents that the Respondent of that case is required to
submit. Moreover, it is unclear which requested public records
were disregarded by the judge, and the reasons for such
decisions, and the rules guiding such actions are not clearly
explained.
[II.] The Judge’s Decision & Entry issued on February 9, 2024
[Exhibit B], partially upheld and partially overruled the
objection of the case’s Requester [Dr. Maleky] to the Special
Master’s Report and Recommendation (issued on January 5,
2024). In that decision, the Judge did not address several
requested public records that the Special Master had omitted
from their consideration.

(Brackets in original.) Id.
{¶ 5} In our December 12, 2024 decision, we first determined that neither of
Maleky’s cross-assignments of error alleged reversible error. Maleky at ¶ 6. Regarding her
first assignment of error, we found that “Maleky seeks access to the in camera records to
ensure the case is proceeding properly, yet the very intent of the court’s in camera review
of the records is to shield her from accessing those documents. Maleky provided no other
information that would enable this court to find error below.” Id. at ¶ 8. We also
No. 25AP-304 4

determined that the record did not support Maleky’s fear that OSU was improperly
withholding records under FERPA. Id. at ¶ 9. It should also be noted that the Court of
Claims explained that it would not review records requested via email by Maleky’s previous
attorney and not included in her amended complaint. Id. As such, we determined Maleky’s
first cross-assignment of error failed to state a cognizable claim of error. Id.
{¶ 6} As for her second cross-assignment of error, we found that Maleky failed to
demonstrate that the Court of Claims’ decision to disregard records not included in her
amended complaint constitute prejudicial error. Maleky at ¶ 10.
{¶ 7} Having overruled both of Maleky’s cross-assignments of error, we addressed
OSU’s sole assignment of error. Ultimately, we reversed and remanded the Court of Claims’
decision for “further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with [our]
decision.” Maleky at ¶ 14. In doing so, we found that “OSU properly attempted to comply
with FERPA by redacting the personally identifying information of its students.” Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶ 8} Following remand, the Court of Claims issued a judgment entry stating that
“[i]n accordance with the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ mandate, judgment is entered in
favor of Respondent since, based on Maleky, no further action needs to be taken by
Respondent in this matter.” (Feb. 21, 2025 Jgmt. Entry at 1-2.) Maleky now brings this
appeal.
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 9} Maleky assigns the following as trial court errors:
[1.] The Court of Claims erred on February 21, 2025, in its
interpretation of the Tenth District Court of Appeals’
December 12, 2024, decision. The appellate court reversed
solely on the limited issue of Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) redactions and remanded the case “for
further proceedings.” The trial court’s entry of final judgment
on all claims did not account for additional, unresolved issues
that were neither addressed nor decided by the appellate court.
[2.] The Court of Claims did not adjudicate Requester’s
remaining claims unrelated to FERPA, including:
• Redactions based on attorney-client privilege
that were not the subject of Respondent’s appeal
• Withholding of responsive records without a
proper certification of nonexistence
• Procedural concerns related to the in-camera
review process
No. 25AP-304 5

These matters required separate judicial analysis and remained
unresolved in the final judgment.
[3.] The Court of Claims entered final judgment on
February 21, 2025, even though by that time Respondent had
not yet produced any responsive records as required by prior
orders dated February 9 and March 27, 2024. Record
production began on April 11, 2025, and stopped after May 12,
2025, despite outstanding ordered records remaining.
Entering judgment prior to full compliance and completion of
record production was inconsistent with the appellate court’s
recommendation.
[4.] The Court of Claims assessed court costs against Requester
despite Requester’s partial success in obtaining unredacted
records and Respondent’s ongoing noncompliance with prior
rulings. This assessment did not reflect the equitable cost
considerations under R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(c), which require
courts to evaluate both the degree of success and the conduct
of the parties in determining cost responsibility.
[5.] The Court of Claims permitted redactions of attorney-
related communications and names that had previously been
held not protected by attorney-client privilege. Because those
rulings were not appealed, the renewed redactions effectively
revisited issues that had already been resolved, contrary to the
court’s prior determinations.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶ 10} The issues raised by Maleky in each of her assignments of error involve
questions of law. “We review questions of law under a de novo standard of review, meaning
we do not defer ‘to a trial court’s interpretation of legal issues.’ ” Rastaturin v. 3165 Curtis
Knoll Drive, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-1378, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.), quoting Hanuman Chalisa, L.L.C. v.
BoMar Contracting, Inc., 2022-Ohio-1111, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.).
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶ 11} In her first assignment of error, Maleky appears to argue that the Court of
Claims exceeded the scope of our remand in its February 21, 2025 judgment entry by
entering judgment in favor of OSU. More specifically, Maleky argues that the court erred
in entering judgment for OSU on all issues instead of just the FERPA redactions. Generally,
“[u]pon remand from an appellate court, the lower court is required to proceed from the
point at which the error occurred.” State ex rel. Stevenson v. Murray, 69 Ohio St.2d 112,
113 (1982). “However, when an appellate court remands a case for a limited purpose, ‘the
No. 25AP-304 6

trial court [is] obliged to accept all issues previously adjudicated as finally settled.’ ” Cugini
& Capoccia Builders, Inc. v. Ciminello’s, Inc., 2006-Ohio-5787, ¶ 32 (10th Dist.), quoting
Blackwell v. Internatl. Union, United Auto Workers Local No. 1250, 21 Ohio App.3d 110,
112 (8th Dist. 1984).
{¶ 12} A review of Maleky’s assignment of error and an independent review of the
record reveals that Maleky’s argument is based on a misinterpretation of the Court of
Claims’ February 21, 2025 judgment entry. On February 15, 2024, the special master issued
a supplemental report and recommendation in this matter. Both Maleky and OSU objected
to portions of the special master’s supplemental report and recommendation. The court
overruled those objections and adopted the special master’s supplemental report and
recommendation. Both parties appealed the court’s decision. As previously stated, this
court overruled Maleky’s assignments of error. Maleky, 2024-Ohio-5825, at ¶ 14 (10th
Dist.). We sustained OSU’s assignment of error and remanded the matter on the sole issue
of redacting personal identifying information of students pursuant to FERPA. Id. at ¶ 13-
14. Thus, at this point in the proceedings, the only unresolved issue involved redactions
pursuant to FERPA. See Cugina & Capoccia Builders, Inc. at ¶ 32. Contrary to Maleky’s
assertion, all other issues were finally settled. Id. Therefore, when the Court of Claims
entered judgment in favor of OSU in its February 21, 2025 judgment entry, it was not ruling
in favor of OSU on all issues, it was only ruling in OSU’s favor on the issue of FERPA-related
redactions. OSU was still required to produce records in accordance with the court’s
March 27, 2024 final entry. The Court of Claims’ statement that “no further action needs
to be taken by Respondent in this matter” simply refers to the fact that OSU need not
provide unredacted versions of records as it pertains to FERPA. (Feb. 21, 2025 Jgmt. Entry
at 1-2.) Based on the foregoing, Maleky’s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 13} Maleky’s second assignment of error contends the Court of Claims erred by
failing to adjudicate unresolved claims that were unrelated to FERPA. These included
redactions based on attorney-client privilege, withholding responsive records without a
proper certification of non-existence, and procedural concerns with the in-camera review
process. At the outset, Maleky’s second assignment of error in the initial part of her brief
appears to be different from what is argued. Although Maleky initially claims that the court
erred in failing to address claims unrelated to FERPA, the argument section contends that
No. 25AP-304 7

the court erroneously vacated previous binding orders. (Appellant’s Brief at 1-2, 12-13.)
Nevertheless, even if we were to consider both arguments, an independent review of the
record reveals that the court did not err.
{¶ 14} Maleky’s substantive argument contends that in issuing its final judgment,
the Court of Claims ignored prior binding rulings that were not appealed, “effectively
vacating them on its own initiative.” (Appellant’s Brief at 13.) However, as we explained in
the analysis of Maleky’s first assignment of error, the court’s February 21, 2025 judgment
entry only ruled in favor of OSU on the issue of redactions pursuant to FERPA. Nothing in
that entry vacates prior binding orders. OSU is still obligated to produce records pursuant
to the court’s March 27, 2024 entry, with the exception that it may redact personal
identifying information of students.
{¶ 15} Although not expounded upon in the argument section of Maleky’s brief, the
initial second assignment of error contends that the Court of Claims “did not adjudicate
[Maleky’s] remaining claims unrelated to FERPA” and that those claims “required separate
judicial analysis and remained unresolved in the final judgment.” (Appellant’s Brief at 1-
2.) Initially, it should be noted that our analysis of this argument is hampered by Maleky’s
failure to provide specific details regarding these unresolved claims or explain this
argument in the substantive portion of her brief. Indeed, it appears these unresolved claims
are similar, if not identical, to the claims she raised, and we overruled, in the initial appeal
of this matter. Maleky, 2024-Ohio-5825, at ¶ 5 (10th Dist.).
{¶ 16} “The doctrine of res judicata ‘promotes principles of finality and judicial
economy by preventing endless relitigation of an issue upon which there was already a full
or fair opportunity to be heard.’ ” Daniel v. Williams, 2014-Ohio-273, ¶ 18 (10th Dist.),
quoting State v. Jama, 2012-Ohio-2466, ¶ 45 (10th Dist.). Under the doctrine of res
judicata, a party is barred “from relitigating the same issue or claim that has already been
decided in a final, appealable order or a valid, final judgment in a prior proceeding and
could have been raised on appeal in that prior proceeding.” AJZ’s Hauling, L.L.C. v.
TruNorth Warranty Programs of N. Am., 2023-Ohio-3097, ¶ 15. If there were issues
unrelated to FERPA in the Court of Claims’ March 27, 2024 final entry, Maleky could have
and should have raised them in her direct appeal. We are limited here to the court’s
judgment entry on the sole issue of FERPA redactions. Thus, whether these issues were
No. 25AP-304 8

not raised in the direct appeal, or were raised and overruled, these claims are now barred
by res judicata. Based on the foregoing, Maleky’s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 17} In her third assignment of error, Maleky alleges that the Court of Claims
erred by prematurely entering final judgment prior to full record production by OSU. In
support of her argument, Maleky cites to Dublin v. RiverPark Group, 2020-Ohio-4892
(10th Dist.) for the contention that a trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce its
own orders, even while an appeal is pending. However, it is unclear how RiverPark is
relevant to Maleky’s third assignment of error. RiverPark was an easement matter
involving the issue of whether the trial court, under the specific facts of that case, had
jurisdiction to decide a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. This is a public records case involving the
Court of Claims entering judgment after a limited remand. RiverPark is wholly
inapplicable to this matter.
{¶ 18} Maleky also cites to “State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. City of Cincinnati,”
for the proposition that the “absence of certification regarding withheld or nonexistent
records violates statutory mandates.” (Appellant’s Brief at 15.) Initially, it should be noted
that neither of the citations provided by Maleky lead to a case with that title. Nevertheless,
it appears that Maleky is alleging that OSU’s record productions have violated Ohio law and
failed to comply with the Court of Claims’ previous orders. However, these record
productions occurred after the judgment entry at issue in this appeal and are outside of the
record. “It is well-established law that a reviewing court cannot consider evidence outside
the record on appeal.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2022-Ohio-4775, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.). Thus, we cannot
consider any evidence of these record productions and whether the court erred in allegedly
failing to enforce the terms of its orders in that regard. Maleky has other recourses to
address OSU’s alleged non-compliance with any of the court’s orders. This appeal is not
the appropriate forum in which to raise those issues.
{¶ 19} Finally, Maleky cites to GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47
Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) for the proposition that “courts must not reward discovery evasion
with finality.” (Appellant’s Brief at 15.) ARC Industries is irrelevant to this matter. In fact,
ARC Industries has nothing to do with discovery evasion. It is a case involving the issue of
whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Moreover,
discovery is different than the production of public records. Discovery is the process by
No. 25AP-304 9

which parties exchange information in preparation for trial. The public records process
makes certain government records available to citizens in an effort to promote
transparency. As such, Maleky’s argument in this regard is without merit.
{¶ 20} In sum, Maleky has failed to point to any legal authority for the proposition
that a trial court must refrain from entering a final judgment in a public records matter
until after all records are produced. It is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively
demonstrate error on appeal. White v. Cent. Ohio Gaming Ventures, L.L.C., 2019-Ohio-
1078, ¶ 25 (10th Dist.). Maleky failed to meet that burden. Based on the foregoing, Maleky’s
third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 21} In her fourth assignment of error, Maleky contends that the Court of Claims
erred in ordering her to pay court costs. R.C. 2743.75(F)(3) states as follows:
If the court of claims determines that the public office or person
responsible for the public records denied the aggrieved person
access to the public records in violation of division (B) of
section 149.43 of the Revised Code and if no appeal from the
court’s final order is taken under division (G) of this section,
both of the following apply:
(a) The public office or the person responsible for the public
records shall permit the aggrieved person to inspect or receive
copies of the public records that the court requires to be
disclosed in its order.
(b) The aggrieved person shall be entitled to recover from the
public office or person responsible for the public records the
amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other
costs associated with the action that are incurred by the
aggrieved person, but shall not be entitled to recover attorney’s
fees, except that division (G)(2) of this section applies if an
appeal is taken under division (G)(1) of this section.

{¶ 22} “A court’s duty is to give effect to the words used in a statute, not to delete or
insert words.” Broadmoor Ctr., L.L.C. v. Dallin, 2016-Ohio-8541, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.). “Where
the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite
meaning there is no occasion for resorting to rules of statutory interpretation. An
unambiguous statute is to be applied, not interpreted.” Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312
(1944), paragraph five of the syllabus. R.C. 2743.75(F)(3) is unambiguous. In order for the
requester to recover court costs from the respondent, the Court of Claims must determine
that the respondent impermissibly denied access to the public records and no appeal from
No. 25AP-304 10

the court’s final order was taken. Here, because there was an appeal from the Court of
Claims’ final order, an appeal in which Maleky’s assignments of error were overruled and
OSU’s assignment of error was sustained, the cost recovery provision in R.C.
2743.75(F)(3)(b) does not apply. Based on the foregoing, Maleky’s fourth assignment of
error is overruled.
{¶ 23} Maleky’s fifth assignment of error contends that the Court of Claims
permitted improper redactions as it relates to certain attorney-client related
communications. This assignment of error appears to be similar to an argument Maleky
set forth in her third assignment of error. Maleky again alleges that certain record
productions by OSU in April and May 2025 violated Ohio law and failed to comply with the
court’s orders. As we previously stated, “[i]t is well-established law that a reviewing court
cannot consider evidence outside the record on appeal.” Boyd, 2022-Ohio-4775, at ¶ 16
(10th Dist.). The productions of which Maleky complains are not part of the record and,
thus, cannot be considered. Maleky has other recourse to address OSU’s alleged non-
compliance with any of the trial court’s orders. Maleky’s fifth assignment of error is
overruled.
V. CONCLUSION
{¶ 24} Having overruled each of Maleky’s five assignments of error, we affirm the
judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
LELAND and DINGUS, JJ., concur.