State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022 Ohio 1765

Relator Alphonso Mobley, an inmate, requested via the prison’s electronic-kite system (March 2021) a paper copy of his “inmate master file” and, later, copies of all kites, informal complaints, grievances, and appeals he filed.
DRC did not produce the records; Mobley filed a mandamus action on June 7, 2021, seeking the records, statutory damages, and costs.
DRC defended by invoking R.C. 5120.21(F), arguing requested items are exempt “records of inmates” and relied on this court’s plurality in Hogan Lovells.
The Supreme Court declined to adopt a categorical rule that all inmate-related records are exempt under R.C. 5120.21(F), instead reading that provision in context to reference the specific inmate-record categories enumerated in R.C. 5120.21.
The Court ordered DRC to produce (1) charges and decisions in Mobley’s disciplinary proceedings and (2) all kites pertaining to him; denied relief for grievance records; awarded court costs and the $1,000 statutory maximum in damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grievance-related records must be produced under the Public Records Act or R.C. 2969.26	Mobley argued R.C. 2969.26 requires production of grievance decisions and related documents he needs for suit	DRC treated grievance records as confidential and not subject to R.C. 149.43	Denied: Mobley conceded grievance records are confidential and he did not show a right to mandamus under R.C. 149.43
Whether charges/decisions in disciplinary cases and kites in the inmate master file are exempt as “records of inmates” under R.C. 5120.21(F)	Mobley argued those portions are public records and must be produced	DRC argued R.C. 5120.21(F) broadly exempts any records that relate to an inmate (relying on Hogan Lovells)	Granted: Court held R.C. 5120.21(F) refers to the specific categories enumerated in R.C. 5120.21 and does not exempt the requested disciplinary charges/decisions or kites; these are public and must be produced (redactions allowed)
Whether petitioner is entitled to statutory damages and costs for the withholding	Mobley sought statutory damages ($100/day up to $1,000) and court costs	DRC offered no valid statutory-exemption defense at time of request and could not show reasonable basis to reduce damages	Granted: Court awarded court costs and the statutory maximum $1,000 (electronic-kite delivery qualifies for damages).

State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 165 Ohio St.3d 368, 179 N.E.3d 1150 (2021) (plurality opinion offering a broad reading of R.C. 5120.21(F))
State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 156 Ohio St.3d 482, 129 N.E.3d 419 (2019) (definition and explanation of inmate "kite")
State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 843 N.E.2d 174 (2006) (mandamus is appropriate remedy to compel public-records disclosure)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392, 31 N.E.3d 616 (2015) (standard: requester must show by clear and convincing evidence a legal right and corresponding legal duty to produce records)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 899 N.E.2d 961 (2008) (R.C. 149.43 is construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 526 N.E.2d 786 (1988) (portions of records that are exempt may be redacted rather than withheld whole)
State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 165 Ohio St.3d 315, 179 N.E.3d 60 (2021) (electronic-kite delivery qualifies for statutory damages under R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. Hedenberg v. N. Cent. Corr. Complex, 162 Ohio St.3d 85, 164 N.E.3d 358 (2020) (award of court costs is mandatory when mandamus compels disclosure)