State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, 2023 Ohio 759

Background

Relator Kimani E. Ware, an inmate, sent a certified-mail public-records request (Feb 2021) to the Hamilton County Clerk asking for: (1) three judges’ oaths of office (Kubicki, Allen, Beridon), and (2) several documents (docket sheet, writ, motion to dismiss, July 27, 2001 judgment entry) from case no. C-010153 (the Cincinnati Enquirer mandamus matter).
The clerk of courts did not respond to Ware’s request; Ware filed an original mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court (Feb 2022) seeking production, statutory damages, and costs.
The clerk argued the judges’ oaths are governed by the Rules of Superintendence (not R.C. 149.43), and that R.C. 149.43(B)(8) barred disclosure of the requested 2001 case records as relating to pre‑2009 criminal matters.
The Supreme Court held Ware used the wrong vehicle to obtain the oaths (invoked only the Public Records Act), so mandamus was denied as to the oaths; it found the clerk failed to establish applicability of R.C. 149.43(B)(8) and ordered production of the Cincinnati Enquirer records.
The Court awarded Ware $1,000 in statutory damages and court costs for the clerk’s failure to produce the Cincinnati Enquirer records; statutory damages were denied as to the oaths (Rules of Superintendence do not authorize statutory damages).
Chief Justice Kennedy (joined by Justice DeWine) concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing clerks’ records (including oath certificates) are subject to the Public Records Act and that the Rules of Superintendence cannot constitutionally preempt that statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ware)	Defendant's Argument (Parikh)	Held
Whether judges’ oaths are obtainable under R.C. 149.43 or governed by the Rules of Superintendence	Oaths are public records held by the clerk and Ware invoked the Public Records Act	The oaths are court administrative records governed by the Rules of Superintendence; Ware used the wrong vehicle	Denied as to oaths: Court held oaths fall under Rules of Superintendence and Ware invoked only the Public Records Act, so mandamus relief denied for oaths
Whether R.C. 149.43(B)(8) bars production of records from the 2001 Cincinnati Enquirer mandamus case because it relates to criminal prosecution initiated before July 1, 2009	Requested documents from a mandamus (civil) action; statute doesn’t apply to these mandamus case records	R.C. 149.43(B)(8) excuses disclosure of records "concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution" for pre‑2009 cases	Granted as to Cincinnati Enquirer records: clerk failed to meet burden to show the exception applies; ordered production
Entitlement to statutory damages for clerk’s failure to comply	Certified‑mail request; clerk failed to promptly produce records	Clerk claimed no record of certified‑mail delivery (no evidence submitted)	Awarded $1,000 for delay in producing Cincinnati Enquirer records; statutory damages denied for oaths because Rules of Superintendence do not authorize them
Award of court costs	Ware sought costs after successful mandamus for some records	No meaningful opposition	Court awarded court costs for successful portion (Cincinnati Enquirer records)

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 163 Ohio St.3d 359, 2020-Ohio-5453, 170 N.E.3d 788 (requester need not cite legal authority; invoking only Public Records Act in action is significant)
State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174 (mandamus is appropriate remedy to enforce R.C. 149.43)
State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966 (broad construction of predecessor to R.C. 149.43(B)(8))
State ex rel. Ellis v. Maple Hts. Police Dept., 158 Ohio St.3d 25, 2019-Ohio-4137, 139 N.E.3d 873 (mandamus standard: clear legal right and duty)
State ex rel. Horton v. Kilbane, 167 Ohio St.3d 413, 2022-Ohio-205, 194 N.E.3d 288 (statutory damages accrue at $100 per business day up to $1,000)
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dinkelacker, 144 Ohio App.3d 725, 761 N.E.2d 656 (First Dist. mandamus action underlying requested records)
State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 526 N.E.2d 786 (Public Records Act codifies public right of access)
Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 129 Ohio St.3d 304, 2011-Ohio-3279, 951 N.E.2d 782 (Public Records Act grants substantive right to inspect and copy public records)
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Waters, 67 Ohio St.3d 321, 617 N.E.2d 1110 (public right to inspect government records)
State ex rel. Harris v. Pureval, 155 Ohio St.3d 343, 2018-Ohio-4718, 121 N.E.3d 337 (Rules of Superintendence do not authorize statutory damages)