State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters (Slip Opinion), 148 Ohio St. 3d 595

On July 19, 2015 UC officer Ray Tensing shot and killed Samuel DuBose; the encounter was recorded by Tensing’s chest-mounted body camera.
Prosecutor’s office obtained the body-cam video July 21 and announced it would withhold the video pending grand-jury review and investigation, citing potential trial-prejudice and investigatory-record exemptions.
Several media organizations (relators) sought the video from various agencies; some requested it from the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office (WLWT, AP, WKRC), while others requested it only from UC or Cincinnati PD (Cincinnati Enquirer, WCPO, WXIX).
Relators filed an original mandamus action on July 27, 2015 seeking release of the video and statutory damages/attorney fees under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.
The prosecutor produced the body-cam video on July 29, 2015 (after the complaint was filed and immediately after the grand jury returned an indictment).
The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the suit as to relators who never requested records from the prosecutor and denied the writ and damages/fees as to the remaining relators because the video had been released and was provided within a reasonable time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / prerequisite request under R.C. 149.43(C)(1)	Mandamus proper against prosecutor for failing to produce the video	Relators who never requested records from prosecutor lack standing to sue prosecutor	Dismissed relators (Enquirer, WCPO, WXIX) who did not request records from prosecutor
Is the body-cam video a public record exempt from disclosure?	Video is a public record and must be produced under R.C. 149.43	Video is exempt as confidential law-enforcement investigatory and trial-preparation material	Court assumed arguendo it was public but did not decide exemption because video was produced
Mootness of mandamus after production	Production occurred only after suit; relief still appropriate	Provision of the requested record renders mandamus claim moot	Writ denied as to relators who received the video (WLWT, AP, WKRC) — claim moot
Statutory damages and attorney fees for untimely production	Seek statutory damages/fees for delayed release	Production was within a reasonable time given review/redaction need and grand-jury concerns	Damages and fees denied — court finds prosecutor responded within a reasonable period

State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (recognizes mandamus as remedy under R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (public-records mandamus standard; relator must prove entitlement by clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255 (no need to show lack of adequate remedy in mandamus public-records cases)
State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood, 86 Ohio St.3d 385 (prior request is prerequisite to mandamus under R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. Strothers v. Norton, 131 Ohio St.3d 359 (same — request requirement for standing)
State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600 (reasonableness standard for timing of production; offices allowed time to examine/redact records)
State ex rel. Cranford v. Cleveland, 103 Ohio St.3d 196 (provision of records generally renders mandamus claim moot)
State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d 619 (public office may examine records before inspection to redact exempt material)
State ex rel. Consumer News Servs., Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 58 (factors for reasonable response time under R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126 (provision of requested records typically moots public-records mandamus claims)