State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, 2023 Ohio 3645

Relator Harry M. Barr, an inmate at Grafton Correctional Institution (GCI), sent a December 5, 2022 public-records request seeking: (1) a GCI record-retention schedule, (2) a list of all GCI employees, and (3) a mental-health "kite" dated April 21, 2022, ref. GCI0422002492.
Barr sued for a writ of mandamus (Jan. 27, 2023) directing respondent James Wesson (GCI warden’s assistant) to produce the records and for statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
Wesson submitted an affidavit asserting he had responded: he provided the employee list and a December 23, 2022 memorandum stating no kite existed under GCI0422002492; he also said GCI has no institution-specific retention schedule.
Barr produced a kite-log (obtained in a separate request) showing kite GCI0422002492 transmitted on April 21, 2022 and argued Wesson’s affidavit was fraudulent; he also asserted he received the employee list only in May 2023.
The court denied Barr’s motion to strike Wesson’s affidavit, found the evidence evenly balanced on whether Wesson timely responded, but concluded the kite-log was clear and convincing evidence the requested kite had existed and granted a limited writ ordering Wesson to produce the kite or show cause within 14 days; statutory-damages determination was deferred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Wesson fail to respond to the Dec. 5, 2022 records request before suit?	Barr: no response was received prior to filing.	Wesson: he responded and provided the employee list and a memorandum explaining the kite was not found.	Evidence evenly balanced; Barr failed to meet clear-and-convincing burden on nonresponse claim.
Did the requested mental-health kite (GCI0422002492) exist?	Barr: kite-log (printed Aug. 30, 2022) shows kite transmitted Apr. 21, 2022.	Wesson: no such kite exists in GCI records.	Kite-log unrebutted; clear-and-convincing proof the kite existed; limited writ to produce kite or show cause.
Does GCI maintain an institution-specific record-retention schedule?	Barr: requested any such schedule.	Wesson: none exists; GCI follows DRC-wide schedule.	Court accepted Wesson’s unchallenged representation that no GCI-specific schedule exists.
Should Wesson’s affidavit be stricken as fraudulent?	Barr: affidavit is fraudulent and should be stricken and sanctioned.	Wesson: affidavit is admissible evidence (no responsive opposition filed).	Motion to strike denied; dispute goes to weight, not admissibility.
Is Barr entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)?	Barr: seeks damages for failure to produce responsive records.	Wesson: compliance or proof records were not held on the request date would defeat damages.	Determination deferred pending Wesson’s compliance with the limited writ or show-cause response.

State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 86 N.E.3d 332 (Ohio 2017) (in original actions court may assess relevance and weight without striking evidence)
Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 843 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio 2006) (mandamus is appropriate to compel public-records disclosure)
State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 128 N.E.3d 179 (Ohio 2019) (requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence that records exist and are public records)
State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 995 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 2013) (definition of clear-and-convincing standard)
State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 170 N.E.3d 788 (Ohio 2020) (evenly balanced evidence fails clear-and-convincing standard)
State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 122 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2018) (failure to produce existing records can support statutory-damages award)
State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 179 N.E.3d 60 (Ohio 2021) (electronic inmate kites satisfy the statute’s permitted request methods)