2020 Ohio 5453
Ohio2020Background
- Relator Kimani Ware, an inmate, sent seven certified-mail public-records requests to the Stark County Clerk of Courts on May 6, 2019 and an eighth request on June 17, 2019 seeking docket sheets, grand-jury reports, personnel records, and administrative forms.
- The clerk’s office says it received only request one; the Stark County Prosecuting Attorney responded on behalf of the clerk’s office, declining to provide certain docket sheets absent a sentencing-judge finding under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) and supplying some copies after invoicing Ware.
- The clerk formally denied the June 17 request and later (Jan. 29, 2020) responded to requests two through seven after Ware filed a mandamus action; it asserted some records did not exist, required prepayment for copies, and withheld docket sheets and grand-jury reports under R.C. 149.43(B)(8).
- Ware did not obtain a sentencing-judge finding authorizing disclosure of records "concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution," and did not pay copying fees for some requested records.
- Ware filed an original mandamus action in this court (alternative writ issued Mar. 25, 2020); the Supreme Court denied the writ, an in camera review, and statutory damages in its Dec. 1, 2020 decision (per curiam). Justice Kennedy filed a dissent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an inmate can obtain public records "concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution" without a sentencing-judge finding under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) | Ware: docket sheets and grand-jury reports are public records and must be produced | Clerk: R.C. 149.43(B)(8) bars disclosure to inmates absent sentencing-judge finding | Court: R.C. 149.43(B)(8) applies; Ware not entitled to mandamus for those records |
| Whether requests for case documents in actions commenced on/after July 1, 2009 are governed by the Rules of Superintendence or the Public Records Act | Ware (dissent): PRA governs access to clerk-kept docket sheets and related records | Majority: Sup.R. 44–47 govern case documents for actions commenced on/after July 1, 2009; such requests are not enforceable via PRA mandamus | Court: Requests for case documents commenced on/after July 1, 2009 are governed by the Rules of Superintendence; Ware not entitled to mandamus under PRA for those records |
| Whether the clerk failed to respond timely and whether Ware is entitled to statutory damages for certified-mail delivery of the requests | Ware: he sent seven requests in one certified envelope and is entitled to statutory damages for delayed response | Clerk: it received only request one; other requests were not received until mandamus filing | Court: Evidence was not clear and convincing that all seven requests were received together; prosecutor’s June 4 letter sufficed as a timely response for request one; statutory damages denied |
| Whether the clerk may require prepayment for copies and whether failure to prepay bars mandamus relief | Ware: disputes delays and seeks records | Clerk: PRA permits charging copying costs and requiring prepayment; it offered copies upon payment | Court: Prepayment and charging copying costs are permitted; Ware did not pay, so no mandamus for those records |
Key Cases Cited
- McCain v. Huffman, 91 N.E.3d 749 (Ohio 2017) (sentencing-judge finding required before inmate can obtain records concerning criminal investigation/prosecution)
- State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Byrd, 154 N.E.3d 57 (Ohio 2020) (Rules of Superintendence govern access to case documents for actions commenced on/after July 1, 2009)
- State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Commt., 150 N.E.3d 43 (Ohio 2019) (Sup.R. 44–47 are the sole vehicle for obtaining certain court records post-2009)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 31 N.E.3d 616 (Ohio 2015) (mandamus standards for enforcing Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 899 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio 2008) (exceptions to disclosure are strictly construed against the custodian)
- State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, 819 N.E.2d 294 (Ohio 2004) (public office may charge copying costs; copies to be made available at cost)
- State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatny, 939 N.E.2d 831 (Ohio 2010) (prepayment of costs may be required before providing copies)
- State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 74 N.E.3d 419 (Ohio 2016) (requester bears clear-and-convincing burden to prove delivery method for statutory damages)