2023 Ohio 1177
Ohio2023Background
- Relator Amirah Sultaana sought prison records about three assaults on her son at Mansfield Correctional Institution (June 9, Sept. 15, and Oct. 14, 2021).
- The prison produced incident reports for June and September and a conduct report for June but redacted the assailants’ names and inmate numbers and provided no documents for the October assault.
- The prison told Sultaana she had received all responsive records (subject to statutory exceptions); Sultaana filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Court considered (a) whether redacted names/inmate numbers were exempt, (b) whether additional incident/conduct/disciplinary records for the October assault exist, (c) whether requested security-camera footage exists, and (d) statutory damages and several procedural motions.
- The Court ordered production (unredacted) of the June and September incident reports and the June conduct report; issued a limited writ requiring production or certification of any incident reports for October and any conduct/disciplinary records for Sept./Oct.; denied relief for security-video footage and statutory damages; and denied motions to transfer, strike, or seal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Redaction of assailants’ names & inmate numbers from incident/conduct reports | Sultaana: identities are public and must be disclosed | Prison: redactions lawful under investigatory/5120.21 inmate records and security-threat exemptions | Court: names and inmate numbers are not protected by CLEIR or R.C.5120.21 here; produce unredacted June and Sept. reports and June conduct report |
| Existence of additional incident/conduct/disciplinary records (Oct. 14 assault; conduct/dispositions for Sept./Oct.) | Sultaana: requested these and her son avers an Oct. assault occurred, so records likely exist | Prison: told requester all responsive records were sent; did not affirmatively aver no other records exist | Court: Prison failed to show nonexistence; issued limited writ to produce those records or certify they do not exist |
| Security-video footage of assaults | Sultaana: prison must produce surveillance unless exemption shown | Prison: no responsive security-camera footage exists | Court: Sultaana presented no evidence rebutting prison’s affidavit that footage does not exist; writ denied for video footage |
| Statutory damages and procedural motions (transfer, strike brief, seal/redact) | Sultaana: seeks statutory damages and various reliefs | Prison: opposes; shows requests sent by fax (not authorized for statutory-damages statute) | Court: denied transfer/strike/seal motions; statutory damages denied because delivery was by fax (not an authorized delivery method under R.C.149.43(C)(2)) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Maurer, 91 Ohio St.3d 54 (incident reports initiating investigation are public records, not automatically CLEIR)
- State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 162 Ohio St.3d 250 (records whose security sensitivity is obvious may qualify as exempt security records)
- State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 160 Ohio St.3d 82 (custodian’s affirmative averment that records do not exist can defeat mandamus absent rebuttal)
- State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 169 Ohio St.3d 39 (R.C.5120.21(F) exempts only the inmate records enumerated in the statute)
- State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545 (surveillance-video production governed by Public Records Act and critical-infrastructure exemption analysis)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527 (offense/incident reports are ordinarily subject to disclosure)
- 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 to enforce the Public Records Act)