State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt, 2023 Ohio 202

Relator Kimani Ware mailed ten certified-mail letters in January 2019 requesting 37 documents from Summit County Clerk Sandra Kurt; Ware alleges the office failed to respond.
Kurt says her office did not learn of the requests until Ware filed a mandamus complaint in January 2020; after service of the complaint the clerk sent responsive documents on January 29, 2020.
The Ohio Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for Kurt; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to determine (1) which PRA records were produced, (2) whether rejections were legitimate, and (3) entitlement to statutory damages.
On remand the court reviewed the parties’ submissions and exhibits: it found Kurt produced records that existed, informed Ware when records did not exist, and provided responsive material for otherwise unclear/overbroad requests.
The clerk initially did not produce the full ~800‑page employee handbook nor provide an invoice for copying costs; the full handbook was later provided after remand.
The court held Ware failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his January 2019 certified‑mail requests were actually received, so he is not entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which PRA records were produced?	Ware: many requested records were not provided.	Kurt: she sent responsive records when office learned of requests; some records do not exist.	Court: Kurt provided records that existed; identified which of the 32 PRA items were produced.
Were non‑produced records legitimately rejected?	Ware: clerk improperly ignored requests.	Kurt: many records did not exist; some requests were overbroad/unclear.	Court: nonexistence is a legitimate reason; unclear/overbroad requests were handled by producing responsive material; only the handbook response was initially deficient.
Employee handbook request (overbroad / cost)	Ware: entitled to the handbook; clerk delayed/denied.	Kurt: handbook ~800 pages; offered portions and warned about charging for large requests.	Court: clerk should have provided full handbook or an invoice; failure was improper but clerk later provided the handbook, so no writ is required.
Statutory damages for delayed response (delivery/timing)	Ware: sent requests by certified mail Jan 2019 and waited over a year.	Kurt: office first learned in Jan 2020 when complaint was filed; 27‑day response after complaint was reasonable.	Court: evidence evenly balanced; Ware failed to prove certified‑mail delivery by clear and convincing evidence; no statutory damages.

State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527 (2007) (custodian has no duty to create or produce nonexistent records)
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Pros., 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (2012) (requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence that records exist)
State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 149 Ohio St.3d 273 (2016) (requester must meet heightened proof to obtain statutory damages for delivery disputes)
State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 163 Ohio St.3d 359 (2020) (evenly balanced evidence about method of delivery precludes statutory‑damages award)
State ex rel. Ware v. Akron, 164 Ohio St.3d 557 (2021) (custodian may require prepayment for voluminous copying but must inform requester of cost or offer an invoice)