State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers, 2024 Ohio 104

Alphonso Mobley Jr. submitted a public records request under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) to the Hamilton County Prosecutor for records related to former R.C. 309.16, including “certified statements” from 2016–2020 and the office’s records-retention schedule.
At the time of Mobley’s request, Melissa Powers was the Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney.
The requested statute, R.C. 309.16, formerly required county prosecutors to provide certified statements to the county board of commissioners detailing specific case and prosecutorial activities—this statute was repealed effective April 4, 2023.
After an initial delay (the office mistakenly did not respond until after Mobley filed his mandamus action), Mobley was sent some records, but he claimed not all requested materials were provided, particularly records under R.C. 309.16(A)(1).
Mobley moved for leave to submit rebuttal evidence that suggested the prosecutor’s office had additional responsive records.
Mobley also sought statutory damages and court costs related to the delay and failure to fully comply.

Issue	Mobley’s Argument	Powers’ Argument	Held
Vagueness of request	Request was for specific certified statements per R.C. 309.16	Request was impermissibly vague/expanded by later briefing	Request was sufficiently specific; Mobley did not exceed request’s scope
Whether claims were moot due to post-filing production	All responsive records were not produced	All requested records were provided, so mandamus is moot	Partly moot (re: retention schedule & 309.16(A)(2) records); but open factual dispute for 309.16(A)(1)—limited writ granted
Leave to file rebuttal evidence	Rebuttal evidence shows existence of additional records	(No opposition)	Leave granted as to evidence showing additional responsive records
Statutory damages	Entitled due to delayed production and certified mail request	Not addressed substantively	Ruling deferred pending compliance with limited writ
Court costs	Entitled to costs	(Not detailed)	Denied due to indigency affidavit; no costs to award

State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (mandamus is an appropriate remedy for public records claims)
State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty. Prosecutor, 164 Ohio St.3d 552 (public office affidavit re: production of records can be rebutted with contrary evidence)
State ex rel. Ellis v. Maple Hts. Police Dept., 158 Ohio St.3d 25 (elements for mandamus in public records context)
State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168 (mandamus claim moot if records are produced)