Opinion
No. 82-1296
Decided April 4, 1984.
Appellate procedure — Necessity to comply with Supreme Court Rules of Practice — Appeal dismissed, when.
IN MANDAMUS.
This original action in mandamus was brought by relators, Queen City Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, a nonprofit voluntary association of working journalists, and three of its members who are journalists and residents of Hamilton County. They sought the issuance of a writ to compel respondents, the Safety Director for the city of Cincinnati and the Sheriff for Hamilton County, to disclose the names of law enforcement officers who were involved in a shooting incidental to a robbery in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Respondents have claimed exemption from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(d) for the reason that they believe release of the officers' names would endanger the officers' lives and safety.
This matter has been before the court twice on motions. On December 10, 1982 relators filed a motion for summary judgment. Depositions and affidavits were filed in support of and in opposition to this motion through January 1983. On June 1, 1983, the court denied relators' motion for summary judgment and ordered relators to file their brief by June 16, 1983.
No brief was filed by relators at that time. On June 23, 1983 respondent Bret McGinnis filed a motion to dismiss. On July 1, 1983, relators filed a second motion for summary judgment, incorporating the arguments and evidence in support of the first motion for summary judgment. No new arguments or facts were submitted.
On October 28, 1983, an additional affidavit was filed. A "Brief in Support of Relators' Complaint" was also filed on that date, which was a one-page document stating, in its entirety, "[r]elators here adopt by reference their memorandum previously filed in support of their first motion for summary judgment."
By entry of November 23, 1983, the court ordered relators' second motion for summary judgment stricken, sua sponte, and overruled respondent's motion to dismiss. That entry also ordered relators to file their brief on or before December 8, 1983.
On December 7, 1983, relators filed their second brief in support of complaint. The brief is a verbatim copy of relators' first motion for summary judgment with a new introduction and cover page. It does not set forth propositions of law denominated as such, and contains no table of contents, table of authorities or appendix.
Messrs. Kircher Phalen and Mr. Robert B. Newman, for relators.
Mr. Richard A. Castellini, city solicitor, and Mr. Hugh O. Frost II, for respondent Bret McGinnis.
Mr. Arthur M. Ney, Jr., prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Roger E. Friedmann, for respondent Lincoln J. Stokes.
Pursuant to Section 10, Rule VIII of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice, briefs filed by plaintiffs in original actions must comply with the requirements of Sections (1), (3), (4) and (6) of Rule V and with Rule VI of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice governing the form of briefs on the merits in appeal cases. Section 1 of Rule V requires that merit briefs contain a table of contents, a table of authorities, arguments headed by propositions of law and an appendix.
Relators' brief does not comply with any of these requirements. Moreover, by this "brief," relators have, in essence, submitted the same motion to the court for consideration for the third time. Relators' failure to file a brief in compliance with the Rules of Practice after being ordered to do so twice is inexcusable. As we stated in Drake v. Bucher (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 37, 39-40 [34 O.O.2d 53]:
"[T]here is no excuse for the failure of any member of the bar to understand or to comply with the rules of this court. They are promulgated so that causes coming before the court will be presented in a clear and logical manner, and any litigant availing himself of the jurisdiction of the court is subjected thereto. Not to be minimized is the necessity of compliance as an accommodation to the correct dispatch of the court's business. * * *
"In order to promote justice, the court exercises a certain liberality in enforcing a strict attention to its rules, especially as to mere technical infractions. But a substantial disregard of the whole body of these rules cannot be tolerated." See, also, Vorisek v. North Randall (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 62, 65 [18 O.O.3d 296].
Here, relators apparently concluded that their first motion for summary judgment, shielded by skilled draftsmanship, could not be challenged and that if they persisted, this court would agree. There is no rational framework for this conclusion.
Accordingly, this cause is dismissed sua sponte for the reason that relators' have failed to minimally comply with the Rules of Practice of this court.
Cause dismissed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.
HOLMES, J., dissents.
In my view, the relators have, in essence, complied with the rules of this court. Disregarding the technical infractions, the law to be asserted was sufficiently set forth within the memoranda surrounding relators' motions for summary judgment.
Therefore, I would decide the case on its merits in order to resolve this important issue.