2021 Ohio 2025
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- In January 2019 Kimani Ware mailed multiple public-records requests to the Summit County Clerk of Courts seeking personnel records, policies, dockets, grand-jury materials, and a transcript/exhibit (Request 34) from his criminal case.
- After receiving no response, Ware filed a mandamus action under R.C. 149.43 in December 2019 to compel production and seek statutory damages.
- The clerk (Sandra Kurt) answered and, after the petition was filed, provided many responsive records and explained others were not available; she moved for summary judgment arguing most requests are governed by the Rules of Superintendence (Sup.R. 44–47).
- The court determined all requests except Request 34 fall within Sup.R. 44–47 (court/administrative records) and thus are not properly pursued under R.C. 149.43.
- Request 34 (a 911-tape transcript from Ware’s criminal case) falls under R.C. 149.43 but Ware, an inmate, had not obtained the sentencing judge’s authorization required by R.C. 149.43(B)(8); summary judgment was entered for Kurt on that request as well.
- The court denied Ware statutory damages and taxed no costs because the filing prompted the clerk’s response.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle for the requests (Sup.R. 44–47 v. R.C. 149.43) | Ware proceeded under R.C. 149.43 to obtain records. | Kurt argued most requested records are court/administrative records governed by Sup.R. 44–47, not R.C. 149.43. | Court held Sup.R. 44–47 govern all requests except Request 34; R.C. 149.43 was improper for those requests. |
| Access to Request 34 (criminal-case record for an inmate) | Ware sought the 911-tape transcript under R.C. 149.43. | Kurt maintained she did not have the record and that an incarcerated requester needs the sentencing judge’s authorization per R.C.149.43(B)(8). | Court held Request 34 falls under R.C.149.43 but Ware lacked the judge’s authorization, so Kurt was entitled to summary judgment. |
| Statutory damages under R.C.149.43(C)(2) | Ware sought $1,000 per request for delayed/noncompliance. | Kurt argued the Rules of Superintendence do not permit statutory damages and she did not violate R.C.149.43 for Request 34. | Court denied damages: Sup.R. claims do not allow statutory damages; no damages for Request 34 because no R.C.149.43(B) violation occurred. |
| Mootness / relief and costs | Ware sought relief for nonresponse. | Kurt argued the action was moot because she responded after suit was filed. | Court granted summary judgment to Kurt; because the suit prompted production, the court assessed no costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (sets Ohio summary-judgment burden of production and proof)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (nonmoving party must present specific facts to create genuine issue in mandamus summary-judgment context)
- State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Committee, 159 Ohio St.3d 211 (Sup.R. 44–47 are the exclusive vehicle for obtaining court records)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Pureval, 155 Ohio St.3d 343 (Rules of Superintendence do not authorize statutory damages)
- State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, 162 Ohio St.3d 94 (statutory damages require a finding that the public office failed to comply with R.C. 149.43(B))