State ex rel. Ware v. Fankhauser, 2023 Ohio 3939

Relator Kimani E. Ware (pro se) claims he sent a public-records request by certified mail on March 4, 2022, seeking documents from Portage C.P. No. 1999-P-0041 and the Clerk of Courts’ records retention schedule.
Relator attached a Clerk time-stamped copy of the request (stamped March 15, 2022) and a certified-mail receipt signed by Michael Hahn (Portage County Dept. of Internal Services).
Respondent Jill Fankhauser (Portage County Clerk) avers her office has no internal record/index entry for that March 2022 request and first learned of the request when Ware filed this mandamus petition in May 2023.
On May 15, 2023, after being notified, the clerk sent Ware copies of the motion for summary judgment, the docket sheet, and the clerk’s retention schedule, and stated the February 4, 2000 judgment entry did not exist.
Ware contended he only received two documents and not the retention schedule; the court found the undated letter Ware submitted looked altered and that the dated compliance letter attached to the clerk’s motion was the authentic response.
The court ruled the clerk had, to the extent possible, complied with the request, denied the writ of mandamus as moot, and denied statutory damages because Ware failed to prove delivery by a statutory method by clear and convincing evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ware)	Defendant's Argument (Fankhauser)	Held
1. Did the clerk fail to comply with Ware’s public-records request (mandamus relief)?	Clerk received Ware’s March 2022 request but did not timely produce all records.	Clerk did not receive that request until May 2023; when notified, she produced available records.	Court: No genuine dispute; clerk produced requested records in May 2023; mandamus claim moot and denied.
2. Did the clerk unreasonably delay complying such that statutory damages are warranted?	Ware: request was received by certified mail on March 14–15, 2022 and delay until May 2023 was unreasonable.	Clerk: evidence does not show clerk received the request by a statutory method (hand, electronic, certified mail); certified receipt was signed by non-clerk employee.	Court: Ware failed to prove delivery by a statutory method by clear and convincing evidence; statutory damages denied.
3. Are Ware’s supporting documents (undated letter) sufficient to create a triable fact?	Ware: the undated letter shows partial compliance only; he did not receive the retention schedule.	Clerk: the dated letter attached to clerk’s motion is authentic; Ware’s undated letter appears altered and lacks required details.	Court: Undated letter appears altered and is insufficient to create a genuine issue; reasonable factfinder would accept clerk’s dated compliance letter.

Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 843 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio 2006) (mandamus is appropriate to compel public-records compliance)
State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 963 N.E.2d 1288 (Ohio 2012) (relator need not prove lack of an adequate remedy at law in public-records mandamus)
State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake, 74 N.E.3d 419 (Ohio 2016) (requester must prove delivery by statutory methods to obtain statutory damages)
State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 163 Ohio St.3d 359 (Ohio 2020) (when evidence on delivery is evenly balanced, heightened burden for statutory damages is not met)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 905 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio 2009) (providing requested records generally renders public-records mandamus moot)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (a version of facts blatantly contradicted by the record cannot defeat summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (opponent must produce more than metaphysical doubt to resist summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard; genuine issue of material fact required)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s initial burden in summary judgment and nonmoving party’s burden to show triable issue)