Send us Fan Mail On September 3, 2026, Scott Gardner extended a settlement offer to the Village of Mantua in his pending mandamus action, which raises a question of first impression under Ohio law: whether an independent, multi-platform investigative journalist qualifies for the public records requester exception set out in Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c). The offer proposed to waive statutory damages, stipulate to undisputed facts, and allow the Eleventh District Court of Appeals to rule directly on the underlying legal question, without discovery or extended motion practice. According to Gardner, counsel for the Village, Matt Markling, did not accept or reject the offer. Gardner states that Markling instead indicated the applicable local appellate rules already placed the matter on an expedited schedule. Gardner followed up in writing two days later requesting clarification of whether this reflected the Village's position. Five days after that, according to Gardner, Markling filed a motion for definite statement under Ohio Civil Rule 12(E). Civil Rule 12(E) permits a motion for definite statement when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably prepare a response. This episode reviews the three grounds Gardner reports the motion raised: (1) that Gardner's petition listed a business address rather than a residential address, (2) that Gardner did not submit documentation establishing journalist status, including a federal tax identification number, and (3) that the petition did not identify where a required pre-filing complaint was served. On the first point, Civil Rule 11 requires a pro se party to state an address for service, without specifying that the address be residential. Gardner states his business address is registered with the Ohio Secretary of State and has been used by Markling's office for service throughout the litigation without prior objection. On the second point, Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c) requires that a written request state the requester's name and title, the name and address of the requester's employer, and a statement explaining how disclosure would serve the public interest. This episode does not assert that the statute requires additional documentation such as a federal tax identification number; that characterization is presented as Gardner's own reading of the statutory text, which listeners and legal readers may wish to verify independently. On the third point, Gardner states that the Village's own motion cites the exhibit identifying where the pre-filing complaint was served, which Gardner contends is inconsistent with the claim that this information was omitted. This episode also discusses a comparable, ongoing matter involving the Village of Garrettsville, where Gardner reports extending a similarly structured offer to attorney William Mason on September 4, 2026, addressing the calculation methodology for body camera record fees under Revised Code 149.43. As of this recording, Gardner states no response of any kind, including a motion for definite statement, has been filed by Garrettsville's counsel. This episode expressly does not characterize that silence as improper, obstructive, or equivalent to Mantua's response, and draws no inference about the Village of Garrettsville's position or intentions. No court has ruled on the merits of the underlying journalist-exception question addressed in this episode, and no finding has been made regarding the propriety of any party's litigation conduct. Statements characterizing the motives, strategy, or billing practices of counsel for the Village of Mantua reflect Gardner's personal opinion and are clearly identified as such; this episode does not represent that Gardner has direct knowledge of any attorney's engagement terms, billing arrangements, or internal communications with a client. Relevant statutory and procedural citations: Ohio Revised Code 149.43(B)(9)(c) (public records journalist exception)Ohio Revised Code 149.43(B)(1) (public records fee provisions)Ohio Civil Rule 11 (signing of pleadings; address requirement)Ohio Civil Rule 12(E) (motion for definite statement)Underlying filings referenced in this episode are publicly available and are linked for independent review. Be loud. Be heard. Shake the system until the truth falls out. Support the show Visit: https://www.liinks.co/the.infamous.exchief
