| On
AI and Data
Center
Beats Ohio
AG Annotations
Revealed Plan to
Deny Records Now
Withdraws
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
July 1 âSince first covering
the artificial intelligence
legal citation hallucination
case involving lawyers Peter
LoDuca and Steven A. Schwartz
in filing against Colombian
airline Avianca in 2023, Inner
City Press has been on the
A.I. beat. Now in 2026 Inner
City Press has submitted a
number of freedom of
information / state public
records law requests to state
Attorneys General for
complaints about a.i. and
about data centers they have
received. We have much to
report, but today June 29 we
turn to Ohio. Inner City
Press has filed an appeal with
the Ohio Attorney General's
Office after the office's own
June 29 acknowledgment letter,
responding to an Inner City
Press public records request
filed June 20, arrived with
what appear to be internal
staff notations still
attached. The request
sought records concerning
Ohio's role in the 42-state
coalition investigation of
OpenAI, consumer complaints
about ChatGPT and other AI
chatbots, and the Ohio AG's
internal analysis of whether
existing consumer protection
law applies to AI-generated
harms. Rather than a clean
acknowledgment, the letter
that came back included, after
nearly every bullet point of
the original request, brief
notations: "Deny 1345.05,"
"Deny common interest," "Deny
work product," "Deny
overbroad," "Deny deliberative
process privilege," among
others. Inner City
Press has appealed each of
these on the merits. Among the
grounds: Ohio Revised Code
1345.05 protects materials
obtained through civil
investigative demands, not
run-of-the-mill coordination
records between state
attorneys general; "common
interest" and "work product"
are litigation doctrines, not
enumerated exemptions under
Ohio's Public Records Act; and
the Ohio Supreme Court
rejected a generalized
"deliberative process"
privilege under that Act
nearly three decades ago in
State ex rel. Gannett
Satellite Information Network
v. Petro. The letter also
flagged two categories of
records as "FIND &
PRODUCE" â meaning the
office's own review already
concluded those materials are
responsive and should be
released. Inner City Press
has asked that those be
produced within five business
days, without waiting for a
fuller dispute over the rest. Inner City
Press posted the Ohio AG's
acknowledgment letter to its
DocumentCloud here On July 1, this:
"Re: Your Public Records
Request (SLTF # 15954) Dear
Matthew Lee, Thank you for
your response. When preparing
our acknowledgment, an
internal draft was
inadvertently sent that
included preliminary
impressions about the request,
such as potential privileges
and possible areas to search.
That information was not
intended to be shared, does
not represent our final
assessment, and should not be
treated as a formal response
to your request. We are
currently conducting the
appropriate search for
responsive records. Once that
review is complete, we will
provide a proper production,
including identification of
any records that are exempt or
privileged under applicable
law. We respectfully request
that the document sent in
error be destroyed and not
relied upon in any way. At
minimum, please consider it
withdrawn and superseded." Consider it done
- while we do not destroy or
unpublish documents, we
clarify them and will not
legally rely on them -
we'll consider it that way and
await the proper production /
responsive documents.
*** Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis. Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com |