State ex rel. Mobley v. Toledo, 2022 Ohio 3889

Relator Alphonso Mobley Jr. requested paper copies of the Toledo Police Department’s records-retention schedule and its traffic-stops/arrests policy manual, allegedly sent by certified mail on October 13, 2021.
Records custodian Jennifer Zilba responded October 15, 2021, denying the request as overly broad and saying the documents were available on the department’s website.
Mobley filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court on January 24, 2022, seeking production and statutory damages under R.C. 149.43.
Toledo denied having a record of receiving Mobley’s request but furnished the two documents after the suit was filed and submitted an affidavit and the documents into evidence.
Mobley failed to produce a copy of his alleged request or a certified-mail receipt; the parties submitted competing affidavits about whether the request was received.
The court denied Mobley’s motion to strike Toledo’s affidavit, found the mandamus claim moot (records produced), and denied statutory damages because Mobley did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the office failed to comply or that he transmitted the request by an authorized delivery method.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of mandamus after production	Mobley sought a writ to compel production; notes delay	Toledo produced records after suit; argues claim is moot	Writ denied as moot (records produced)
Whether Toledo violated R.C. 149.43(B)	Referral to website and initial denial amounted to noncompliance	No proof Toledo received Mobley’s request; no violation shown	Mobley failed to prove a violation by clear and convincing evidence
Entitlement to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)	Deserves damages for delay; claims certified-mail transmission	No certified-mail receipt or other proof of authorized delivery	Denied — Mobley did not prove transmission by certified mail/authorized method
Motion to strike respondent’s affidavit and exhibits	Affidavit not served; seeks to admit alternate exhibit	Toledo’s evidence was available and Mobley received a copy; affidavit admissible	Motion to strike denied; Exhibit I not permitted

Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 843 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio 2006) (mandamus is appropriate remedy to compel public-records compliance)
State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 894 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio 2008) (mandamus claim becomes moot if office produces requested records)
State ex rel. Griffin v. Doe, 180 N.E.3d 1123 (Ohio 2021) (requester must prove violation by clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 170 N.E.3d 788 (Ohio 2020) (evenly balanced evidence defeats heightened burden)
Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 123 N.E.3d 887 (Ohio 2018) (statutory damages may be awarded despite mootness in some public-records cases)
State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 N.E.3d 575 (Ohio 2020) (statutory damages require proof of authorized transmission method)
State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 74 N.E.3d 419 (Ohio 2016) (requester must establish delivery method specified in statute for damages)
State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 995 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 2013) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)