State ex rel. Ware v. Stone, 2022 Ohio 1151

Relator Kimani Ware, an incarcerated requester, alleges he sent two certified-mail public-records requests to the Stark County Prosecutor on May 18, 2020 and filed a mandamus complaint on April 14, 2021 after receiving no response.
The prosecutor’s office first learned of the requests when served with the writ, compiled 972 responsive pages, and on May 12, 2021 invoiced Ware $97.20 for copying (postage to follow).
Ware paid copying and later shipping fees; he ultimately received responsive materials (972 pages) in October 2021 but complained some pages were redacted/blank and that two requested policies did not exist.
The court converted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion, allowed additional Civ.R. 56(C) evidence, and stayed decision pending the Ohio Supreme Court’s Crawford decision.
The prosecutor submitted affidavits (including mail-clerk affidavits) showing inmates cannot know certified-mail tracking numbers before sealing mail; the prosecutor corroborated production by filing the prosecutor’s public-records policy and retention schedule previously sent to Ware.
The court concluded Ware received all responsive records (except two nonexistent policies), denied mandamus as moot, and denied statutory damages and court costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus compelling production is warranted or moot	Ware: prosecutor failed to timely respond to his certified-mail requests	Prosecutor: responsive records were produced and two policies do not exist	Moot — records were produced; mandamus denied
Entitlement to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) for certified-mail delivery	Ware: he sent requests by certified mail and thus qualifies for damages for noncompliance	Prosecutor: no record the office received Ware’s May 18, 2020 requests; inmate could not have known tracking numbers	Denied — Ware did not prove delivery as required by statute
Whether delay in producing records (48 business days after shipping payment) was unreasonable	Ware: delay harmed him and warrants damages	Prosecutor: time was reasonable given volume (972 pages), redactions, prepayment, and shipping	Denied — 48 business-day post-payment delay was reasonable given circumstances
Award of court costs for alleged bad faith under R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b)(iii)	Ware: failure to promptly provide records and invoice supports costs	Prosecutor: acted reasonably; did not receive requests and produced materials after payment	Denied — no clear evidence of bad faith; Ware did not prove prior delivery or bad intent

State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 130 (public-records mandamus standards and statutory-damages analysis)
State ex rel. Penland v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction, 158 Ohio St.3d 15 (mandamus elements in public-records cases)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374 (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of access)
State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, 104 Ohio St.3d 276 (public offices may charge copying costs)
State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527 (no duty to create nonexistent records)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126 (production of records generally renders mandamus claim moot)
State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13 (statutory-damages framework and reasonable-period considerations)
State ex rel. Stuart v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 11 (response times; substantial redactions can justify delay)
Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d 619 (public office may examine records for redactions before release)