Drafts Are Public Records: A Reminder From the Court of Claims

I am often asked if a draft report, contract, or other document should be produced if asked for in a public records request. In a recently published decision, Forhan v. Ohio House of Representatives, 2025-Ohio-4336, the Ohio Court of Claims reaffirmed a critical principle under the Ohio Public Records Act: draft documents can be public records.

Former Representative Elliot Forhan sought access to materials related to two internal investigations—one involving himself and another involving a staffer. While the Ohio House released some records, it withheld two categories: personal notes from investigators and drafts of the investigative reports.

The Court ruled:

• The drafts were indeed public records, even though they were created by a private law firm retained by the Attorney General on behalf of the House.
• The House had jurisdiction over the investigations and delegated a public function to the firm, making the drafts part of the public record.
• The House failed to prove the drafts were exempt as trial preparation materials or protected by attorney-client privilege.

However, the Court found the personal notes of the investigators were not public records, as they were created solely for individual use and not maintained by the public office.

Key Takeaway for Public Offices and Practitioners:

This case serves as a strong reminder: drafts are not inherently exempt from disclosure. If they document a public function and are under the jurisdiction of a public office—even if created by a third party—they may be subject to public records laws.

Public entities should carefully consider how they handle draft documents and ensure compliance with transparency obligations. Drafts, like final versions, can be discoverable.