State ex rel. Ullmann v. Klein (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 2974

Background:

On Feb. 14, 2019, Victoria Ullmann emailed two public-records requests to the Columbus City Attorney’s Office seeking (among other things) lists of city environmental/abatement cases and records relating to her property at 1135 Bryden Road.
Ullmann filed an original-action mandamus complaint on Mar. 22, 2019 against several officials; claims against others were dismissed and an alternative writ remained only as to Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein.
Klein’s office produced responsive records on May 17, May 31, and June 13, 2019, but redacted the “status” column of the city’s case lists, asserting the redactions were trial-preparation materials.
Ullmann sought a writ compelling production of unredacted records, $1,000 in statutory damages, attorney fees, in camera review of redactions, and oral argument.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the mandamus claim moot (production occurred and Ullmann did not identify undisclosed or unlawfully redacted records), awarded Ullmann $1,000 statutory damages (conceded by Klein), denied attorney fees (Ullmann proceeded pro se), and denied in camera review and oral argument. Justice Kennedy (joined by Fisher and DeWine) concurred in part and dissented in part, urging an in camera review.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ullmann)	Defendant's Argument (Klein)	Held
Mootness/mandamus: whether a writ is still warranted after production	Despite production, Ullmann sought a writ to compel unredacted records	Production of records after suit moots mandamus unless relator identifies remaining undisclosed records or unlawful redactions	Complaint dismissed as moot; no writ because Ullmann did not identify outstanding records or prove unlawful redactions
Statutory damages: whether Ullmann is entitled to statutory damages for email requests	Email delivery satisfies R.C. 149.43(C)(2) so damages apply	Klein conceded Ullmann is entitled	Awarded $1,000 statutory damages
Attorney fees: whether Ullmann may recover fees	Seeks fees to benefit similarly situated homeowners	Klein: pro se litigant not eligible for attorney fees	Denied; pro se relator not entitled to attorney fees
In camera review of redactions: whether court should inspect redacted status column	Requests in camera review to test whether redactions are proper (not speculation)	Redactions are trial-preparation/work product; affidavits explain status field usage	Denied: court found Ullmann’s challenge speculative and Klein’s affidavits sufficient; concurrence would have ordered review
Oral argument: whether oral argument is warranted	Requests argument due to alleged broader constitutional and home-rule issues	Case is straightforward public-records dispute; no new legal ground	Denied: discretionary denial — issues uncomplicated, no conflict or new precedent

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (mandamus is proper remedy to enforce R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (2012) (relator must prove entitlement to extraordinary relief by clear and convincing evidence)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing-evidence standard)
State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255 (2012) (no requirement to show lack of adequate remedy in ordinary course in public-records mandamus)
State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168 (2011) (production of requested records generally renders public-records claim moot)
State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 56 (2018) (electronic submission/email qualifies for statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2))
State ex rel. Nix v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 379 (1998) (attorney notes/trial-preparation and standards for in camera review when crime-fraud exception asserted)
State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine, 135 Ohio St.3d 191 (2013) (courts should inspect records in camera when disclosure exceptions are asserted)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (2008) (custodian bears burden to prove records fall squarely within an exception)
State ex rel. Yant v. Conrad, 74 Ohio St.3d 681 (1996) (pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney-fee awards)