Clerk of Court Cannot Block Online Access to Older Eviction Records

The Hamilton County Clerk of Courts cannot defy a judicial order by eliminating remote access to online court records of older, residential eviction cases, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed a First District Court of Appeals decision requiring Clerk of Courts Pavan Parikh to rescind his May 2022 policy to take some eviction records offline. Parikh had maintained as an independent elected official, he had the discretion to limit access via the clerk’s website to eviction cases older than three years from the date of judgment.

The judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court collectively objected to Parikh’s independent action and ordered him to restore online access to all municipal court records. Parikh challenged the judges’ order before the First District. When he was unsuccessful, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court stated that under R.C. 1901.31, the clerk of courts must comply with the order as directed by the municipal court judges.

“This policy decision to restrict public access to certain court records infringes on the judges’ authority to make such decisions,” the opinion stated.

Clerk Raised Concern of Misuse of Court Records
In some Ohio counties, municipal court clerks are appointed and in others they are elected. Hamilton County elects its clerk of courts to serve as the clerk for the municipal and common pleas courts as well as for the First District appeals court. Parikh was appointed to the position in 2021 and elected clerk in 2022.

In May 2022, Parikh issued a policy to eliminate remote online access to older eviction cases. He stated the purpose was to prevent members of the public, such as employers and landlords, from inappropriately relying on court documents when considering employment, housing, and other needs. He asserted the “online inquiries led to misidentification of parties with similar names and produced inaccurate and unfair results that harmed citizens.”

Parikh permitted public access to the records in person at the clerk’s office during regular business hours.

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

Parikh refused to post the disclaimer and proposed a more general disclaimer that stated the clerk of court is not required to offer remote access to case documents. “If you believe a case file or particular document exists but is not available online, please visit the Clerk’s Office or submit an online request for a copy of the specific record you are attempting to obtain,” he suggested.

The judges objected to Parikh’s disclaimer and issued an administrative order. The order cited both its local rules and Rule 45 of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio. The judges directed Parikh to rescind his policy and restore public access to the eviction records.

Parikh did not comply with the order, and the judges told him in March 2024 that he could be held in contempt of court if he did not bring the clerk’s website into compliance with the court’s order.

Clerk Challenged Judges’ Ability To Direct His Office Functions
Parikh sought a writ of prohibition from the First District that would prevent the judges from enforcing its order and from holding him in contempt. The judges responded by requesting a writ of mandamus ordering Parikh to rescind the May 2022 policy and restore full online access.

All the judges of the First District recused themselves, and a three-member panel of judges from the Twelfth District Court of Appeals considered the case. In September 2024, the appeals court sided with the judges, issued an order to restore the records, and denied Parikh’s request to block the judges from attempting to hold him in contempt.

Parikh appealed to the Supreme Court, which must hear this type of appeal. Parikh had sought to stay the First District’s opinion and allow him to continue to restrict access to eviction cases until the Supreme Court resolved the dispute. In November 2024, the Court denied Parikh’s request and the order to restore access went into effect.

Supreme Court Analyzed Clerk’s Power
Parikh told the Court that both state and local rules regarding court records allow, but do not require, clerks of courts to place records online. As an elected official, Parikh maintained he could exercise his discretion to remove eviction records from the clerk’s website.

The per curiam opinion noted there are two issues with Parikh’s argument. First, R.C. 1901.31 requires the clerk of courts to perform the duties directed by the municipal court judges. Second, the court rules grant the judges, not the clerk, the discretion to restrict access to municipal court records. Because the municipal judges, in their discretion, ordered Parikh not to limit online access, he had a duty to comply, the opinion stated.

The opinion noted that while Rule 45 does not require courts to make all records available online, the rule recognizes that the public can access records more easily online than in person. The rules treat discontinuing online access as a means to restrict access, the Court stated.

“Indeed, the May 2022 policy rests on this recognition – it assumes that members of the public who might search for court records online will not make the effort to access records in person,” the opinion stated.

The Court also noted that Rule 45 calls for a balancing test by a court when considering whether to restrict access. The court must determine if the public’s access is outweighed by a stronger interest to restrict access to a court record. And when the court determines access should be restricted, under Sup.R. 45(E)(3), it must use “the least restrictive means available.”

“These decisions, which involved the court’s making findings, involve judicial discretion. A clerk of courts’ duties, in contrast, are generally ministerial,” the opinion stated.

The Court found Parikh’s decision infringed on the judges’ discretion and he had a duty to comply with their order.

The Court also rejected Parikh’s request to block the judges from holding him in contempt. The Court noted the judges had the power to take such action if they wished. The Court found Parikh had a remedy available to him if the judges pursued it. He could appeal the contempt order if one was issued, the Court ruled.

2024-1466. State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2117.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.