2022 Ohio 3397
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Relator Willard McCarley (an ODRC inmate) mailed a public-records request seeking specified emails and institutional records about him (sent Dec. 2019).
- ODRC acknowledged receipt, later produced approximately 300 pages with extensive redactions, and ODRC staff later hand-delivered copies after litigation began.
- McCarley filed an original action in mandamus (filed June 30, 2020) to compel full production and to seek statutory damages for delay.
- The magistrate reviewed unredacted records in camera and recommended a writ ordering ODRC to produce unredacted records that had been withheld or redacted solely under R.C. 5120.21(F) as "records of inmates."
- ODRC objected, arguing Hogan Lovells supported a broad exemption under R.C. 5120.21(F); the court reviewed Hill (10th Dist.) and later Supreme Court guidance rejecting a categorical rule and adopted the magistrate's recommendation.
- The court granted the writ directing ODRC to produce unredacted copies of records withheld solely under R.C. 5120.21(F) as relating to McCarley, allowed other valid redactions to remain, and denied statutory damages because McCarley mailed his request by ordinary mail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 5120.21(F) bars disclosure of records relating to the requesting inmate | McCarley: records about him are not exempt; he has right to his own records | ODRC: 5120.21(F) broadly exempts records "relating to" inmates, so withheld material is non-public | Court: 5120.21(F) does not categorically exempt records about the requesting inmate; McCarley is entitled to records redacted only on that basis |
| Whether the redacted records were properly withheld under any Public Records Act exception | McCarley: redactions were improper where based solely on 5120.21(F) | ODRC: redactions justified under 5120.21(F) (and later suggested Admin. Code ground) | Court: redactions based solely on 5120.21(F) as to McCarley must be removed; ODRC may still redact under other valid exemptions; administrative-code argument waived |
| Whether statutory damages are available for ODRC’s delay | McCarley: seeks statutory damages for ODRC’s failure to timely and fully comply | ODRC: produced records and cured delay; argues no damages | Court: statutory damages denied because statutory damages under R.C.149.43(C)(2) apply only when request was delivered by hand, electronic submission, or certified mail; McCarley used ordinary mail |
| Whether ODRC may rely on Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-49(F) to deny request | McCarley: not raised below; asserts entitlement to records | ODRC: in objections argued compliance would unreasonably interfere with duties under the administrative rule | Court: ODRC waived that argument by not raising it before the magistrate; cannot raise it for first time in objections |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 165 Ohio St.3d 368 (2021) (plurality held R.C. 5120.21(F) can be read broadly to exempt records that relate or refer to inmates)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (2013) (public-office custodian bears burden to prove an exemption under the Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Rogers v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. and Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545 (2018) (reiterating custodian’s burden to establish applicability of Public Records Act exceptions)
- State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio Envtl. Prot. Agency, 88 Ohio St.3d 166 (2000) (Public Records Act mandates access unless a specific exception applies)
- State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394 (2019) (statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C) limited to requests sent by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail)