Andes v. Ohio Atty. Gen.'s Office, 2017 Ohio 4251

Requester Jodi Andes emailed the Ohio Attorney General’s Office (AGO) seeking computer files admitted into evidence in the Bobby Thompson/John Donald Cody criminal trial; the formal request was sent December 2, 2016.
AGO acknowledged the request but delayed substantive production while conducting legal review and noting an ongoing appellate filing; no responsive records were provided before Andes filed a claim under R.C. 2743.75 on February 10, 2017 alleging denial and unreasonable delay.
After mediation and litigation, AGO began rolling productions on March 15, 2017, and completed production April 13, 2017, providing copies (with certain redactions) of exhibits it deemed responsive.
AGO contended some evidence-storage items were merely containers or were not in its possession (thus not producible) and that non-used contents of seized storage media were not AGO "records."
The Special Master found AGO ultimately produced all responsive public records but waited 103 days from the request to initial production, which exceeded a "reasonable period of time."
Relief awarded: claim for production rendered moot, but Andes entitled to recover the $25 filing fee and other costs incurred due to AGO’s untimely response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Andes made a valid public-records request	Andes submitted a formal December 2, 2016 request for files admitted into evidence	AGO argued earlier emails were preliminary and no valid request until Dec 2	Held: Dec 2 email was a valid, specific records request limited to files admitted in trial
Whether AGO produced all responsive public records (mootness)	Andes argued AGO had not produced requested files before suit	AGO produced copies after suit and said all responsive files were provided	Held: Production after suit rendered claim for production moot because AGO produced all responsive records
Whether non-used contents of seized storage media are "public records"	Andes sought complete contents of seized devices	AGO argued unused contents did not document its functions and thus are not "records" under R.C. 149.011(G)	Held: Unused contents of storage devices are not AGO "records" and were not required to be produced
Whether AGO’s delay violated R.C. 149.43(B) and warrants statutory relief	Andes argued delay in providing records was unreasonable and caused harm	AGO asserted legal review and appellate activity justified delay	Held: 103-day delay before initial production was unreasonable; Andes entitled to recover filing fee and other costs

State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (2013) (standard for mandamus claims under R.C. 149.43(B))
State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168 (2011) (post-complaint production can moot a records claim; availability depends on custody)
State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364 (2006) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
State ex rel. DiFranco v. City of S. Euclid, 138 Ohio St.3d 367 (2014) (untimely production can violate R.C. 149.43 and support relief)
State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler, 75 Ohio St.3d 171 (1996) (attorney fees may be awarded when custodian forces litigation before producing public records)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (burden on custodian to prove applicability of disclosure exceptions)
State ex rel. McCleary v. Roberts, 88 Ohio St.3d 365 (2000) (item in possession is not a "record" unless it documents the office’s activities)
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Whitmore, 83 Ohio St.3d 61 (1998) (mere receipt or possession does not make an item a public record)
State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527 (2007) (prior request is prerequisite to mandamus under R.C. 149.43)