State ex rel. Ware v. Walsh, 2021 Ohio 4585

Relator Kimani Ware mailed a certified-mail public-records request in June 2020 seeking personnel files for two individuals, a serology report from his criminal case, his arrest report, and a direct-indictment information sheet; tracking info purported delivery on June 8, 2020.
Ware received no response and filed an R.C. 149.43 mandamus action in July 2021 to compel production and to obtain court costs and statutory damages for the alleged delay.
Respondents (Summit County Prosecutor and office) asserted they had no record of receiving Ware’s June 2020 request and only became aware of it when served with the mandamus complaint; they mailed a response after the complaint, which was initially returned for an insufficient address and then resent.
Respondents produced the requested personnel files after the mandamus filing (making that claim moot), and they refused to produce the serology, arrest, and indictment records because Ware is incarcerated and had not obtained the sentencing-judge authorization required by R.C. 149.43(B)(8).
Ware sought court costs and statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C); the court evaluated whether Respondents acted in bad faith or whether Ware proved transmission of his certified-mail request by clear and convincing evidence.
The court granted Respondents’ summary-judgment motion, denied Ware’s requests for court costs and statutory damages, and taxed no costs because the mandamus filing prompted the office’s response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mandamus to compel personnel files	Ware: files were requested by certified mail and not produced	Walsh: office had no record of receiving the request until mandamus; files were provided after suit	Denied as moot — personnel files were produced after filing
Mandamus to compel serology, arrest, and indictment records	Ware: these are public records; delay entitles him to relief	Walsh: Ware is incarcerated; R.C. 149.43(B)(8) requires sentencing-judge authorization before release	Denied — no judge authorization under R.C. 149.43(B)(8)
Court costs award	Ware: delay in response justifies court costs	Walsh: they responded promptly once aware; no bad faith; prior timely responses to Ware	Denied — no evidence of bad faith; costs not mandatory without writ
Statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)	Ware: significant delay entitles him to statutory damages	Walsh: they were unaware of the request until suit; Ware failed to prove certified-mail delivery by clear and convincing evidence	Denied — evidence of mailing/delivery was evenly balanced and insufficient to meet clear-and-convincing standard

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (sets summary-judgment burdens and standards)
State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (reciprocal burden on nonmoving party to show genuine issue)
State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Committee, 159 Ohio St.3d 211 (distinguishes when R.C. 149.43 vs. Rules of Superintendence govern requests)
State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 163 Ohio St.3d 359 (Rules of Superintendence inapplicable to cases commenced before July 1, 2009)
State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 130 (defines ‘‘bad faith’’ and discusses standards for costs/statutory damages)
State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, 162 Ohio St.3d 94 (statutory-damages entitlement under R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. Hedenberg v. North Central Correctional Complex, 162 Ohio St.3d 85 (circumstances under which court costs may be awarded)
State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont County Prosecutor, 164 Ohio St.3d 552 (public-records mandamus claim becomes moot when records are provided)