State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 1419

Relator Mark Griffin, an inmate at Toledo Correctional Institution (TCI), sought records about numbers of staff and inmates exposed to or who contracted COVID-19 in April 2020.
On April 21 Griffin submitted a kite invoking R.C. 149.43 but asked for numbers/information (not expressly for records); TCI custodian Sonrisa Sehlmeyer replied that he had requested information but offered a two‑page DRC daily status sheet for ten cents.
Griffin did not accept/pay for that sheet and on April 28 sent a follow‑up kite expressly requesting "documented records" of staff and inmates who contracted COVID‑19; Sehlmeyer replied that TCI had "no public record responsive to [his] request."
Griffin filed a mandamus action seeking production and statutory damages; the Court issued an alternative writ and took evidence.
The Court concluded the April 21 kite was an information request, but the April 28 kite—read in context—was a valid records request; Sehlmeyer therefore had a duty to identify responsive records and offer them at cost.
The Court held Griffin’s April 28 request was transmitted electronically via JPay, distinguishing prior precedent, and awarded statutory damages of $1,000 (the statutory maximum).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Griffin's April 21 kite was a valid public‑records request	It invoked R.C. 149.43 and sought the "actual number" of exposures/ infections	It requested information, not records, and thus was improper under R.C. 149.43	Court: April 21 was properly treated as an information request, not a records request
Whether the April 28 kite required production of responsive records	April 28 expressly sought "documented records" of staff and inmates who contracted COVID‑19	It was merely a rejection of the earlier offer or sought nonpublic medical records	Court: In context April 28 was a valid records request; custodian must identify responsive records and offer copies at cost (limited to records existing on/before April 28)
Whether Sehlmeyer's earlier offer mooted the mandamus claim	Offer of daily status sheet was not accepted; unresolved April 28 request remains	Production of the April 21 sheet moots the claim	Court: Not moot—the April 21 production did not resolve the April 28 dispute
Whether Griffin is eligible for statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) given use of prison "kite" system	Griffin used JPay electronic submission, satisfying the statute's transmission requirement	Prior case law held kite systems did not qualify for statutory‑damages transmission	Court: Distinguishing McDougald, JPay counts as electronic submission; Griffin entitled to statutory damages (maximum $1,000)

State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 857 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2006) (requests for information or requests that would require creating a new record are improper under R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, 943 N.E.2d 553 (Ohio 2011) (mandamus standard: requester must prove clear legal right and respondent's clear legal duty)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, 71 N.E.3d 1076 (Ohio 2016) (same clearance/duty standard for public‑records mandamus)
State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 950 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2011) (production of requested documents ordinarily renders a mandamus claim moot)
State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood, 715 N.E.2d 179 (Ohio 1999) (requester is entitled only to records that existed on or before the request date)
State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 N.E.3d 575 (Ohio 2020) (prior holding that delivery via a prison kite system did not qualify for statutory‑damages transmission; Court here narrows that holding)