State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 123 N.E.3d 895

Background

Relator Lauren Kesterson submitted a broad public-records request to Kent State University on April 13, 2016, seeking insurance policies, communications among identified university employees about Kesterson and former coach Karen Linder, records about Linder’s departure, training materials, and records relating to Kesterson’s sexual-assault report.
Kent State initially acknowledged the request, produced 446 pages on June 20, 2016, objected to several requests as overbroad, and stated searches for some communications returned no responsive records.
Kesterson filed a mandamus action on August 2, 2016 seeking production, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs; the case proceeded to this court, and Kent State produced many additional records between October and December 2016 and later during federal litigation discovery.
The court found that Kent State produced records responsive to most request categories by at least December 2, 2016, and Kesterson failed to identify what remains withheld; thus the production claim was moot.
The court held Kent State’s objections to requests 3 and 4 (broad records about Linder’s departure and restrictions) were valid as overbroad, but disagreed that other communications requests were impermissibly broad and found Kent State had delayed completion of production.
Remedy: the writ of mandamus was denied as moot, statutory damages of $1,000 awarded for untimely production, attorney fees were awarded (to be proved by itemized application), but court costs were denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kent State failed to produce public records responsive to the April 2016 request	Kesterson: Kent State did not fully respond and continued to withhold records; mandamus relief required	Kent State: It timely responded and many requests were overbroad; later productions were as courtesy and not required	Production claim moot: Kent State provided responsive records by Dec. 2, 2016; writ denied
Whether Kesterson’s communications requests were overbroad/impermissible research	Kesterson: Requests identified persons, topics, and timeframes and were enforceable	Kent State: Requests for “all communications” were overly broad and would require impermissible research	Court: Communications requests (specified persons, topics, time limits) were not overbroad and did not require impermissible research
Whether requests about Linder’s departure and restrictions (requests 3 & 4) were sufficiently specific	Kesterson: These are lawful requests for records about a discrete event	Kent State: Requests seek information, not specific records, and are overly broad	Court: Requests 3 and 4 were impermissibly broad; Kent State’s objections to them were valid
Remedies for untimely production: statutory damages, attorney fees, costs	Kesterson: Entitled to statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs	Kent State: Contends its conduct was reasonable and reductions/disallowance possible	Court: Awarded $1,000 statutory damages (max). Attorney fees awarded (subject to itemized submission and potential reduction). Court costs denied because writ was not issued ordering production

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391 (discusses overbreadth and improper duplication of files)
State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 133 Ohio St.3d 122 (limits on broad categories without temporal/content limits)
State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33 (requesting e-mails by specified individuals on topics over short periods is permissible)
State ex rel. Carr v. London Corr. Inst., 144 Ohio St.3d 211 (distinguishes improper research and addresses statutory damages reduction factors)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392 (mandamus remedy and timeliness; mootness when records produced)
State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman, 92 Ohio St.3d 312 (overbroad requests for any reference to an individual are insufficient)
State ex rel. Patterson v. Ayers, 171 Ohio St. 369 (public records are the people’s records; historical principle supporting disclosure)