2020 Ohio 5100
Ohio2020Background
- Relator Jerone McDougald, then an inmate at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF), submitted a public-records request (Jan. 3, 2019) via the prison kite system seeking DRC records 2693, 2611, and 4181.
- Respondent Larry Greene, SOCF records custodian, replied that DRC 2693 does not exist and that McDougald’s request for DRC 2611 and 4181 lacked sufficient specificity to locate incident reports; he asked McDougald to clarify.
- McDougald filed a mandamus action (Aug. 23, 2019). The Supreme Court issued an alternative writ and set briefing; McDougald’s exhibits (including Greene’s response) were admitted as evidence.
- Greene conceded that DRC 2611 and 4181 exist and did not assert exemptions; he defended by arguing he had sought clarification and thus met his statutory duties.
- The Court held: no duty to produce a nonexistent record (DRC 2693); McDougald is entitled to inspection of DRC 2611 and DRC 4181 because Greene’s claimed ambiguity was unreasonable; statutory damages were denied because McDougald failed to prove he delivered the request by hand, certified mail, or electronic submission (kite system does not qualify).
- Court denied as moot McDougald’s motions to amend and his request for court costs (indigence affidavit); granted his motion to treat exhibits as evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public office must produce a nonexistent record (DRC 2693) | McDougald contended DRC 2693 is a use-of-force form and requested it | Greene proved after exhaustive search that DRC 2693 does not exist | Court: No duty to create or produce nonexistent records; writ denied as to DRC 2693 |
| Whether request for DRC 2611 and 4181 was ambiguous and whether requesting clarification satisfied the Public Records Act | McDougald argued he sought the blank/stock forms only and his request was clear | Greene argued he reasonably sought clarification and thus complied with his obligations | Court: Request was reasonably clear (blank/stock forms); Greene’s confusion was unreasonable; writ granted to produce DRC 2611 and 4181 |
| Whether delivery by the prison kite system qualifies McDougald for statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) | McDougald asserted his kite delivery was effectively hand delivery and sought statutory damages | Greene and majority: kite delivery does not meet statutory means (hand, electronic, or certified mail); plaintiff failed to prove method of delivery by clear and convincing evidence | Court: Statutory damages denied because kite system does not qualify and relator did not prove hand/electronic/certified-mail delivery |
| Whether motions to amend and award of costs/statutory relief should be granted | McDougald sought to amend briefs/complaint to clarify wording and to recover costs/statutory damages | Greene opposed on merits; indigence affidavit waived costs; statutory-damages proof lacking | Court: Motions to amend denied as moot or futile; costs denied as moot (indigence); statutory-damages motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 843 N.E.2d 174 (2006) (mandamus is appropriate to enforce Public Records Act)
- Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 31 N.E.3d 616 (2015) (elements and burden for public-records mandamus)
- Glasgow v. Jones, 894 N.E.2d 686 (2008) (requester must identify records with reasonable clarity)
- Carr v. London Corr. Inst., 41 N.E.3d 1203 (2015) (denying presumption that a request is ambiguous merely because officer says so)
- Norris v. Budgake, 729 N.E.2d 758 (2000) (public office not required to create new records to satisfy a request)
- Striker v. Smith, 950 N.E.2d 952 (2011) (a mandamus claim becomes moot when records are produced)
- Martin v. Greene, 129 N.E.3d 419 (2019) (requester must prove delivery method by clear and convincing evidence to obtain statutory damages)