2020 Ohio 4268
Ohio2020Background
- Jerone McDougald, an inmate at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, requested the facility’s most recent shift-assignment duty rosters (first–fourth shifts).
- Larry Greene, the prison’s public-records custodian, provided heavily redacted copies (showing only headings, dates, and supervisor signature lines) citing R.C. 149.433 (security/infrastructure exemptions) and R.C. 5120.21(D)(2).
- McDougald filed a mandamus action seeking unredacted records, costs, and statutory damages; the court ordered Greene to submit unredacted rosters for in camera review.
- The unredacted rosters list captains/lieutenants, officer names and specific post assignments, escort assignments, absence categories, handwritten staff notes, and shift staffing tallies.
- The Supreme Court (majority) held the rosters are not infrastructure records but are security records exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.433(A)(1), denied the writ and denied costs/statutory damages; Justice Kennedy dissented, arguing Greene failed to meet the burden to justify the redactions and would have granted the writ (but denied damages).
Issues
| Issue | McDougald's Argument | Greene's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether duty rosters are exempt as "infrastructure records" under R.C. 149.433 | Roster assignments are not infrastructure/configuration of critical systems | Rosters disclose correctional-officer posts and thus are infrastructure records | Not infrastructure records (majority) |
| Whether duty rosters are exempt as "security records" under R.C. 149.433(A)(1) | Greene failed to prove exemption; redactions improper without evidence | Rosters reveal guard identities/locations and thus imperil security | Majority: rosters are security records and exempt; dissent: Greene did not meet burden to prove exemption |
| Whether Greene satisfied statutory duty to explain denials and whether mandamus/statutory damages are warranted | Custodian’s one-line explanation insufficient; redaction is a denial entitling relief and statutory damages | Redactions justified by security concerns; no duty to disclose unredacted records | Majority: writ denied; no court costs or statutory damages awarded; Dissent: would grant writ but deny statutory damages on discretion grounds |
| Proper allocation of burden of proof when exemptions are "apparent within the records" | Exemptions must be proved by custodian; court should not supply missing proof | If security risk is apparent on face of records, custodian may meet burden without extensive affidavit | Majority adopts rule that obvious risks in the records themselves can satisfy burden; dissent rejects creating that rule and insists custodian must present proof |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Rogers v. Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018) (discussed scope of infrastructure exemption and when records may be evaluated on their face)
- State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 732 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 2000) (custodian’s conclusory affidavit insufficient to prove exemption; limited portions may nonetheless be exempt where apparent)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 31 N.E.3d 616 (Ohio 2015) (mandamus standard: requester must show clear right and custodian clear duty)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 886 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 2008) (custodian bears burden to prove records "fall squarely within" an exception)
- State ex rel. Plunderbund Media, L.L.C. v. Born, 25 N.E.3d 988 (Ohio 2014) (agencies cannot simply label records "security records" without showing they fit the statutory definition)
- State ex rel. McGowan v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 678 N.E.2d 1388 (Ohio 1997) (exceptions to disclosure strictly construed; burden on custodian)