State ex rel. Brown v. N. Lewisburg, 2013 Ohio 3841

Pat Brown, a Village council member, hand-delivered a written request on June 13, 2012 to the Village Fiscal Officer seeking invoices, purchase orders, voided documents, and checks for Jan 2011–Jan 2012 (and Jan 2012 invoices).
The Mayor and Fiscal Officer contended Brown already had access to the requested information in monthly council packets (payment registers, receipt registers, bank reconciliations, and invoices available for review at meetings).
After continued requests, the Village provided a detailed payment register and purchase orders before Brown filed mandamus on July 26, 2012; full copying was later produced (Brown paid copying costs).
Brown sought a writ of mandamus ordering disclosure, statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(1), and attorney fees; Respondents argued the claim was moot and that Brown was not entitled to duplicative copies because she already had access.
The court found the disclosure moot (records provided) but considered Brown’s claim for statutory damages and fees and denied them, concluding Respondents reasonably believed they did not have to provide voluminous duplicate copies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown made a valid public-records request	Brown delivered a written request that fairly described records and sought copies	Village characterized the request as routine council information request, not a public-records request	Court assumed arguendo it was a public-records request but proceeded to damages analysis
Whether providing records after suit renders mandamus moot	Brown sought writ and statutory damages despite later production	Respondents argued production moots the mandamus claim	Court: mandamus relief moot because records were produced, but damages claim survives review
Whether statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(1) are warranted for delay	Brown sought up to $1,000 for lost use from filing of mandamus until production	Village argued Brown had access at meetings and it was reasonable to refuse duplicative mass copying; thus no failure to comply warranting damages	Court held statutory damages not warranted: custodians could reasonably believe duplicative copies unnecessary and that conduct served public policy
Whether attorney fees should be awarded under the Public Records Act	Brown sought attorney fees and costs under R.C. 149.43	Respondents argued Brown not entitled because they reasonably believed their conduct complied with law and policy	Court denied attorney fees for same reasons as statutory damages

State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168, 950 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2011) (production of records generally moots mandamus for disclosure)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo–Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537, 905 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio 2009) (production of records ordinarily renders mandamus claim moot)
State ex rel. Halder v. Fuerst, 118 Ohio St.3d 142, 886 N.E.2d 849 (Ohio 2008) (mandamus will not compel a duty already performed)
State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff's Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224, 932 N.E.2d 327 (Ohio 2010) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of broad access)
State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 133 Ohio St.3d 122, 976 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio 2012) (requests analyzed under totality of facts; custodians’ reasonable beliefs may limit damages)
Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 129 Ohio St.3d 304, 951 N.E.2d 782 (Ohio 2011) (requester need not state reason for inspection or copying under Public Records Act)