State ex rel. Howson v. Delaware Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2023 Ohio 1440

Relator David R. Howson, an incarcerated individual, sent two certified public-records requests in March 2022 to the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO); the second sought 12 discrete categories of records largely relating to his arrest/prosecution.
DCSO produced DVDs of electronic records on April 4, April 27, and November 7, 2022; DCSO’s public-records specialist attested the DVDs contained all responsive nonexempt records and included forms describing redactions/exemptions.
Howson contended the DVDs lacked any records responsive to his second request and that some redactions were unjustified; he requested production, statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees and filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court.
DCSO asserted some items were exempt or sealed (citing court-ordered sealing) and that certain items did not exist or were infrastructure records; it produced additional material on November 7 after re-review.
The court required Howson to rebut DCSO’s affidavits by clear and convincing evidence that additional responsive records existed; the court denied motions to strike and ultimately denied the writ and all requested damages/fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DCSO produced all records responsive to the second request	Howson: DCSO did not respond at all and DVDs contain none of the requested records	DCSO: DVDs (April 27, Nov. 7) contain all responsive nonexempt records; some items exempt/sealed or not maintained	Held: Howson failed to rebut DCSO’s evidence by clear and convincing proof; writ denied
Whether Howson may recover statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)	Howson: Certified-mail request; DCSO’s alleged failure to timely produce entitles him to statutory damages	DCSO: Complied by producing records; redactions/exemptions explained; no violation of R.C. 149.43(B)	Held: Denied — Howson did not prove a statutory violation because he did not rebut DCSO’s evidence of production
Whether Howson may recover court costs or attorney fees	Howson seeks costs and fees associated with mandamus action	DCSO: No writ awarded; no bad-faith voluntary production after suit; relator pro se and produced no evidence of fees	Held: Denied — costs require relief or a finding of bad faith; no attorney-fee proof and claim waived
Whether court may consider claims about the first request/redactions not pleaded	Howson asked relief for alleged defects in first request response in briefing	DCSO: First-request claims were conceded resolved in the complaint stage and not pleaded	Held: Court declined to consider new first-request claims not pleaded or amended; claim not before court

State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 843 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio 2006) (mandamus is proper remedy to enforce Public Records Act)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 905 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio 2009) (public office may establish production by affidavit)
State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty. Prosecutor, 174 N.E.3d 718 (Ohio 2021) (requester must rebut office’s affidavit by clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 995 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 2013) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 123 N.E.3d 895 (Ohio 2018) (denial of writ when requester fails to rebut affidavit showing production)
State ex rel. Strothers v. Norton, 965 N.E.2d 282 (Ohio 2012) (affirming denial of mandamus where requester did not provide clear-and-convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 805 N.E.2d 1094 (Ohio 2004) (records cease to be public when sealed)
State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 128 N.E.3d 179 (Ohio 2019) (examples of failures that can support statutory-damages awards)