State ex rel. Stuart v. Greene (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3685

Relator Keontae Stuart, while incarcerated at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF), requested the facility’s K‑2 post orders on April 7, 2019.
SOCF records custodian Larry Greene requested a $1.80 copying fee; after Stuart paid, Greene provided a redacted copy on May 8, 2019 (31 days after the request).
Stuart filed a mandamus action on May 2, 2019 claiming Greene failed to provide records promptly and sought statutory damages; he later moved for an in camera review of the unredacted record.
The court ordered Greene to file the unredacted record; Greene submitted it under seal on October 18, 2019 and moved to keep it sealed.
The Supreme Court addressed whether Greene’s response was within a “reasonable period of time” under R.C. 149.43 and whether statutory damages, fees, or costs were warranted; it also resolved the sealing request.
Court: Stuart did not challenge the redactions (mooting that claim); 31‑day response time and substantial redactions were reasonable, no statutory damages awarded; the unredacted filing remains sealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stuart)	Defendant's Argument (Greene)	Held
Whether Greene’s response was not "prompt" under R.C. 149.43, entitling Stuart to statutory damages	Stuart contends Greene did not provide records promptly and only produced them after suit, entitling him to statutory damages	Greene produced a redacted record 31 days after the request; time was reasonable given the document length and redactions	Court: 31 days was reasonable; no statutory damages awarded
Whether provision of the redacted record rendered mandamus claim moot	Stuart originally sought the document; asserted delay	Greene supplied the redacted record and Stuart did not challenge redactions	Court: Provision of records moots the claim as to production; redactions not challenged so moot
Whether the unredacted record should be sealed and whether bad‑faith fees/costs apply	Stuart argued production occurred only after suit (implying bad faith for fees/costs)	Greene sought sealing to protect confidential information; argued bad‑faith analysis unnecessary if fees/costs not pursued properly	Court: Sealed the unredacted record; Stuart ineligible for attorney fees (pro se) and waived court‑costs claim by not briefing it, so no bad‑faith analysis needed

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, 148 Ohio St.3d 595 (2016) (statutory damages may be awarded if records are not provided promptly)
State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13 (2018) (six‑month delay supported statutory damages analysis)
State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland, 149 Ohio St.3d 612 (2016) (24‑day response was reasonable where search, printing, and redaction were required)
State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d 619 (1994) (public offices may examine records to make appropriate redactions before disclosure)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126 (2002) (provision of requested records generally renders a mandamus claim moot)
State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel, 62 Ohio St.3d 197 (1991) (pro se litigants are not eligible for an award of attorney fees)
State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators’ Labor Council v. Cleveland, 114 Ohio St.3d 183 (2007) (claims not argued in merit brief are waived)