2022 Ohio 1627
Ohio2022Background
- Relator Kimani Ware, an inmate, sent ten certified-mail public-records requests (37 items) to the Summit County Clerk of Courts in January 2019 and later filed a mandamus action when he claimed the requests went unanswered.
- Requests sought clerk-office policies, personnel and budget information, grand-jury materials, certain dockets and an oath of office, and the transcript of a 9‑1‑1 call used in Ware’s 2003 criminal case.
- The Ninth District granted summary judgment for Clerk Sandra Kurt, concluding that all but the 9‑1‑1 transcript were governed by the Rules of Superintendence (Sup.R. 44–47) rather than the Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43), and that Ware had not obtained sentencing-court authorization required for the transcript.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held that most requests for records relating to the clerk’s office operations are governed by the Public Records Act (not Sup.R. 44) but identified four items that are court records under Sup.R. 44(B).
- The Court affirmed that Ware could not obtain the 9‑1‑1 transcript without sentencing-judge approval under R.C. 149.43(B)(8), but remanded factual questions about whether the clerk timely produced other records and whether Ware is entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C).
- Separate opinions: Chief Justice O’Connor concurred (emphasizing harmony between the Act and Sup.R.); Justice Kennedy dissented in part (arguing the Rules cannot abrogate statutory substantive rights and that a custodian must timely notify denials, potentially supporting damages).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate vehicle: Public Records Act vs Rules of Superintendence | Ware: R.C. 149.43 governs production of all requested records | Kurt: Many requested items are court records governed by Sup.R. 44–47 | Majority: Public Records Act governs most records related to clerk’s office operations; four items are governed by Sup.R. 44(B) (dockets, grand‑jury reports, schedule sheets, oath) |
| Custodianship / nature of records | Ware: Documents about clerk-office policies, procedures, personnel are records of the clerk’s office and subject to R.C. 149.43 | Kurt: Those records are court records subject to Sup.R. and thus should be pursued under the Rules | Court: Clerk of courts is an independently elected public office; records documenting clerk-office operations generally fall under the Public Records Act, not Sup.R. 44 |
| Access to 9‑1‑1 transcript from Ware’s criminal case | Ware: Clerk failed to produce transcript and delayed response >1 year; seeks production and damages | Kurt: She did not possess the transcript and, in any event, inmate requests require sentencing-judge approval under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) | Court: Clerk had no obligation to provide the transcript without sentencing-court authorization; affirmed denial of relief for that record |
| Statutory damages and timeliness of response | Ware: Entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C) for unreasonable delay in responding to requests | Kurt: She either produced records or had legitimate reasons for refusing (overbroad, non-existent); for the transcript, no duty to produce without judge approval | Court: Reversed Ninth District’s blanket denial of damages; remanded factual issues whether requests were delivered in Jan 2019, which records the clerk produced, reasons for refusals, and whether statutory damages are owed; but affirmed no damages for the transcript because judge approval lacking and R.C.149.43(B)(3) does not impose a timeliness requirement per majority opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Commt., 159 Ohio St.3d 211 (2019) (threshold inquiry whether Public Records Act or Rules of Superintendence govern access)
- State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Byrd, 160 Ohio St.3d 141 (2020) (application of Rules of Superintendence to court records/access post‑2009)
- State ex rel. Giavasis v. Crawford, 163 Ohio St.3d 359 (2020) (distinguishing clerk‑office operational records subject to Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394 (2019) (statutory damages and reasonableness of a custodian’s delay in responding)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 (2006) (R.C. 149.43(B)(8) permits restriction on inmate access to certain records absent sentencing-court approval)
- Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (mandamus is the proper remedy to enforce the Public Records Act)