2025 Ohio 1422
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Alphonso Mobley, Jr., an incarcerated individual, filed a mandamus action against the Franklin County Board of Commissioners (the Board) seeking compliance with a public records request under Ohio's Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43).
- Mobley's request sought a copy of the Franklin County Prosecutor’s 2020 annual statement to the Board, which the Prosecutor's Office previously provided to him a month before his request to the Board.
- The Board denied Mobley’s request, stating it was a duplicate of the one already fulfilled by the Prosecutor's Office; after the litigation began, the Board provided the requested records, rendering the mandamus request moot.
- Mobley pursued statutory damages and court costs, arguing the Board’s initial refusal constituted an unreasonable delay and statutory violation.
- The magistrate recommended dismissal, finding the Board acted reasonably based on existing case law, given the duplicative nature of the requests to closely related county offices.
- The court adopted the magistrate's decision (with minor modifications), finding no entitlement to statutory damages or costs, and dismissed Mobley’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicative record requests to separate county offices | Each public office must independently respond to requests, even if duplicative | Board acted reasonably in denying a duplicative request already fulfilled by another county office | No independent duty; reasonable to deny as duplicative |
| Entitlement to statutory damages | Denial of records without legal authority or explanation should result in presumed injury and statutory damages | No damages owed as denial was based on reasonable reliance on case law, with no loss of use to Mobley | No statutory damages; Board’s conduct was reasonably based on case law |
| Privity between county offices | Prosecutor and Board are separate entities, each independently responsible under the Public Records Act | Public offices within the same governmental unit have sufficient privity for the purposes of duplicative requests | Privity concept not key, but Board's reliance on case law regarding duplication is reasonable |
| Distinction from prior Supreme Court cases | Supreme Court precedent: receipt from another entity does not excuse a public office from record production | Cushion and related cases distinguish prior precedent because records came from closely related public entities, not private parties | Supreme Court precedents distinguishable; rationale for denial applied due to intra-government context |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cushion v. City of Massillon, 2011-Ohio-4749 (5th Dist.) (holding that multiple public offices in the same city need not each provide identical copies of public records when one office responds on behalf of all)
- State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177 (clarifying when statutory damages accrue for delayed public records responses)
- State ex rel. Brown v. N. Lewisburg, 2013-Ohio-3841 (2d Dist.) (reasonable for records custodians to refuse duplicative, voluminous requests if requester already has access)
- State ex rel. Laborers Internatl. Union of N. Am., Local Union No. 500 v. Summerville, 2009-Ohio-4090 (statutory damages not available for duplicate public records requests from same office)
- State ex rel. Adkins v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Legal Dept., 2024-Ohio-5154 (public offices are not required to respond to duplicative public-records requests)