State ex rel. Reese v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Legal Dept., 2022 Ohio 2105

Background

Relator Thomas Reese, a former inmate, sought records from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to support litigation: initial requests in December 2017 and a detailed public-records request dated April 14, 2021 concerning a December 18, 2019 incident.
Reese used a FOIA form for the December 1, 2017 request and later sent a December 29, 2017 letter that referenced R.C. 149.43; he alleges he never received requested medical/mental-health and related inmate records and that lack of those records harmed his Court of Claims litigation.
On April 14, 2021 Reese requested 12 categories of records from the DRC legal department (video clips, OSHP investigative reports, RIB records, pack-up slips, conduct/use-of-force reports, and various medical records and imaging).
DRC responded on August 5, 2021 with partial production, stating some records were not in its custody, some could not be provided in the requested format, and some were exempt as "records of inmates" under R.C. 5120.21(F); DRC indicated OSHP might hold certain investigative reports.
Reese filed mandamus on July 13, 2021 seeking production, statutory damages, and later asked to add OSHP entities as respondents; the Supreme Court granted the writ in part (ordering production of certain records) and denied other relief.

Issues

Issue	Reese's Argument	DRC's Argument	Held
1) Does Reese's Dec. 1, 2017 FOIA-form request trigger R.C. 149.43 relief?	Form requested records; he needed them for litigation.	FOIA applies only to federal agencies, not state DRC.	Denied — FOIA request lacks merit against DRC.
2) Did Reese send a Dec. 29, 2017 R.C. 149.43 request to DRC?	He claims he sent a Dec. 29 letter to OD R.C. Legal Dept. and AG seeking the same records.	No evidence in the record that DRC received the Dec. 29 request.	Denied — Reese failed to prove he sent the request to DRC.
3) April 14, 2021 Req. No.1: Must DRC convert 10-minute security video into photo-clip frames?	Requests video in "photo clip" format for a 10-minute time span.	Footage not maintained in that format; converting would create a new record.	Denied — public office not required to create new documents or convert format.
4) April Req. No.2: Must DRC produce OSHP investigative reports?	DRC should provide the investigative reports regarding alleged assault.	Those reports are maintained by OSHP, not DRC.	Denied as to DRC — Reese failed to show DRC had custody.
5) April Req. Nos.3, 7, 8: Are R.I.B. records and pack-up slips exempt under R.C. 5120.21(F)?	Requests these records as public records.	Withheld under R.C. 5120.21(F) ("records of inmates").	Granted — under Mobley reasoning, R.C. 5120.21(F) does not broadly exempt records not specifically identified in R.C. 5120.21; DRC must disclose these records.
6) April Req. No.4: Use-of-force and investigative reports — must central office produce?	DRC indicated it was obtaining them from NEOCC.	Central office does not maintain those records; they are institution-level records.	Denied — no duty on central office to produce records it does not possess.
7) April Req. Nos.6, 9–12: Medical records and imaging — must DRC provide copies?	Seeks copies of body indexes, pack-up slips at medical center, dental/x-ray/MRI/EEG reports.	Medical records are governed by R.C. 5120.21(C) and institutional policy; release procedures differ and records are available for inmate review under policy.	Denied — Reese did not follow statutory/procedural requirements; DRC has no duty to produce them in this mandamus action.
8) Motion to add OSHP entities as respondents	After learning OSHP might hold records, asks to add OSHP Central Records and Southington Post.	DRC did not oppose in the record; procedural rules apply.	Denied — proposed amendment procedurally defective (no affidavit per court practice rules).
9) Statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)	Seeks damages for DRC's alleged noncompliance.	Statutory damages only available if request was delivered by hand, electronic submission, or certified mail.	Denied — Reese failed to prove delivery in an eligible manner.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392 (2015) (sets mandamus standard and access presumptions under the Public Records Act)
State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (2013) (custodian bears burden to establish applicability of exemption)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (exceptions to disclosure must squarely fit requested records)
State ex rel. Carr v. Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351 (2006) (FOIA is limited to federal entities)
State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 273 (1998) (public office not required to create new documents from existing records)
State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 165 Ohio St.3d 368 (2021) (plurality interpreting R.C. 5120.21(F) broadly — discussed but limited by later Mobley reasoning)
State ex rel. Penland v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 158 Ohio St.3d 15 (2019) (statutory damages require proof of approved delivery methods)
State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394 (2019) (no duty to produce records not in custodian's possession)
State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168 (2011) (similar holding on lack of duty where office does not possess requested records)