2020 Ohio 3700
Ohio2020Background
- Kimani Ware, an incarcerated person, sent two public-records requests to Stark County Clerk Louis Giavasis: (1) Oct. 23, 2018, for the clerk’s public-records policy and retention schedule; (2) Dec. 6, 2018 (certified mail), for the indictment, docket sheet, complaint, and jury-verdict forms in a 2003 criminal case.
- Giavasis responded on Jan. 18, 2019, providing records for the first request but denying the second unless Ware obtained approval from the sentencing judge under R.C. 149.43(B)(8), and he explained that denial in a letter.
- Ware filed a mandamus complaint in the Fifth District on Jan. 8, 2019 seeking the withheld records; Giavasis moved for summary judgment.
- The Fifth District granted summary judgment for Giavasis, concluding Ware failed to obtain the sentencing-judge approval required by R.C. 149.43(B)(8); it also found Giavasis had satisfied the first request.
- Ware appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an incarcerated requester is entitled to records "concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution" without sentencing-judge approval | Ware: Russell is limited to offense/incident reports; these criminal-case records are not covered | Giavasis: R.C.149.43(B)(8) broadly requires sentencing-judge approval for any public record concerning a criminal prosecution | Court: Affirmed—statute applies broadly; Ware needed sentencing-judge approval and did not have it |
| Whether Russell restricts B(8) to offense/incident reports | Ware: Russell only held offense/incident reports are covered, so other records are excluded | Giavasis: Russell recognized those reports are covered but did not limit the statute to them | Court: Russell does not limit B(8); the statute is broad and covers the requested records |
| Whether Ware’s constitutional challenge to R.C.149.43(B)(8) can be considered | Ware: Statute unconstitutional | Giavasis: Issue not properly before the court | Court: Waived—Ware failed to raise it below, so the court did not address it |
| Whether Ware is entitled to statutory damages for the clerk’s delay/denial | Ware: Sent second request by certified mail and is entitled to statutory damages because Giavasis did not produce records before suit | Giavasis: He lawfully denied the request under B(8) and fulfilled the duty to explain the denial, so he did not fail to comply under R.C.149.43(B) | Court: No statutory damages—Giavasis satisfied the obligation to explain the denial; Ware did not show a failure to comply that would trigger damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. McBride, 955 N.E.2d 954 (summary-judgment standard; de novo review of Civ.R. 56)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 856 N.E.2d 966 (R.C.149.43(B)(8) language is broad and covers records concerning criminal investigations/prosecutions)
- State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 123 N.E.3d 887 (statutory damages under the public-records law can be awarded even when mandamus relief is not granted)
- State ex rel. Fernbach v. Brush, 976 N.E.2d 889 (constitutional challenges not raised below are waived)