State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell, 2023 Ohio 1323

Background

Relator Patrick H. Adkins, an incarcerated person, sought municipal- and common-pleas–court records relating to his 1998 DUI and 2007 disorderly-conduct convictions by multiple public-records requests between 2020 and 2022.
Circleville Municipal Court clerk Charma M. Cantrell produced some items in September 2021 but did not produce all material Adkins requested, and she did not respond to some later requests.
In October 2021 Adkins specifically requested any internal guidelines or policies (circa 1998 and 2007) on handling complaints/warrants, establishing probable cause, issuing arrest warrants, and setting bail for R.C. 2917.11(B)(2) offenses. Cantrell never addressed that request substantively.
Adkins filed a mandamus action seeking production under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43(B)) and statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C). The court issued an alternative writ, received briefing, struck some untimely exhibits, and considered statutory-damages entitlement.
The Supreme Court of Ohio granted the writ in part: it ordered Cantrell to respond to and produce any responsive internal guidelines/policies and awarded Adkins $1,000 in statutory damages; the court denied the writ as to records related to Adkins’s criminal cases because Adkins failed to obtain the sentencing-judge finding required by R.C. 149.43(B)(8).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clerk had duty to produce records related to Adkins’s criminal cases while he is incarcerated (R.C. 149.43(B)(8))	Adkins argued Cantrell failed to produce numerous case records for his 1998 and 2007 convictions.	Cantrell effectively asserted she provided records in her possession; the statutory bar (B)(8) prevents disclosure absent a sentencing-judge finding.	Denied as to those records: Adkins failed to show the sentencing judge made the required R.C. 149.43(B)(8) finding, so clerk had no duty to produce them.
Whether request for the name/address/phone of the court reporter is a public-records request	Adkins said the court reporter contact info is public information and must be provided.	Cantrell argued she had produced records; the court noted such an inquiry requests creation or extraction of information rather than production of an existing public record.	Denied: Request for contact details was an improper information request (not a demand for an existing public record).
Whether internal guidelines or policies (handling complaints/warrants, probable cause, bail-setting) must be produced	Adkins contended Cantrell failed to produce internal guidelines/policies he requested in October 2021.	Cantrell did not substantively address or show she produced those policies.	Granted in part: Writ ordered Cantrell to respond to that request and produce any responsive documents in her possession that are subject to disclosure.
Entitlement to statutory damages for failure to comply with R.C. 149.43(C)	Adkins sought statutory damages for multiple requests (Aug 2021, Oct 2021, Jan 2022).	Cantrell argued she had responded and/or provided records; for some requests she asserted non-possession or that disclosure was barred.	Partly granted: Adkins received the maximum $1,000 for Cantrell’s failure to comply with the October 2021 request. No damages for Aug 2021 (transmission method not shown) or Jan 2022 (records barred by B(8)).

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (recognizing mandamus as remedy to enforce R.C. 149.43)
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337 (relator bears burden to prove entitlement to records and must plead compliance with statutory preconditions)
McCain v. Huffman, 151 Ohio St.3d 611 (no duty to provide inmate-requested records absent compliance with R.C. 149.43(B)(8))
State ex rel. Fernbach v. Brush, 133 Ohio St.3d 151 (R.C. 149.43(B)(8) bars disclosure to incarcerated requesters without judge’s finding)
State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33 (requests that require creating or compiling information rather than producing existing records are improper)
State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 167 Ohio St.3d 566 (relator’s burden to show clear legal right and records custodian’s duty)
State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, 167 Ohio St.3d 193 (applying B(8) to deny access)
State ex rel. Ware v. Akron, 164 Ohio St.3d 557 (statutory damages mandatory when custodian fails to comply)
State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 160 Ohio St.3d 383 (distinguishing timeliness requirements for production vs. explanations under R.C. 149.43(B)(3))
McDougald v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 130 (transmission method can affect statutory-damages entitlement)