STATE OF OHIO ex rel. KIMANI WARE v. FAITH ANDREWS, LAKE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
CASE NO. 2020-L-043
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
Decided: December 6, 2021
[Cite as State ex rel. Ware v. Andrews, 2021-Ohio-4257.]
Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
OPINION
Judgment: Petition denied
Kimani Ware, pro se, PID# A470-743, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett Road, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Relator).
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor; Michael L. DeLeone and Harrison L. Crumrine, Assistant Prosecutors, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{1} Kimani Ware (“Relator“) seeks a writ of mandamus against the Lake County Clerk of Courts (“Respondent“)1 to compel the production of public records. In addition, Relator seeks an award of statutory damages. The matter is now decisional on Relator‘s motion for summary judgment and Respondent‘s brief in response. For the reasons set
{2} Relator is an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution. Relator alleges that on April 19, 2019, he submitted an envelope containing seven public records requests to Respondent by way of certified mail. “Request One” includes a request for copies of the complaint and motion to dismiss in Eleventh District Court of Appeals case number 2018-L-127, an original action initiated by another inmate incarcerated at Trumbull Correctional Institution. Also requested in “Request One” are copies of the Lake County Clerk of Courts public records policy; the roster listing (current employees) of the Lake County Clerk of Courts office; the Lake County Clerk of Courts oath of office; and the Lake County Clerk of Courts record retention schedule. Relator alleges that all seven requests were returned to him with a post-it note, stating: “Mr. Ware, We do not have any case with that # nor any case with your name on it. Did you have a different name at [sic] time?”
{3} At all relevant times, Maureen G. Kelly was the duly elected Lake County Clerk of Courts. In an affidavit, Kelly acknowledges receipt of “Request One,” but not the other six requests, and avers the request was returned to Ware with a note seeking clarification.
{4} Relator further alleges that on May 14, 2019, he sent a letter to Respondent by way of regular U.S. mail, which read: “You sent all seven of my public records requests back to me, stating that there is no case with my case number [sic] or that case number, I‘m re-submitting all seven of my public records requests (see the attached public records
{5} Relator filed this complaint for a writ of mandamus on March 30, 2020. Copies of Relator‘s April 19 requests, certified mail receipts, the post-it note response, and May 14 letter are attached to his complaint, as well as his affidavit in support. Kelly directed her staff to assemble the records and her legal counsel to respond. The response letters, with copies of the requested records, were mailed to Relator on April 27 and April 28, 2020. Relator acknowledges receipt of the records on April 30, 2020. There were no documents responsive to a few of Relator‘s requests.
{6} In his motion for summary judgment, Relator states he “is now happy in all aspects in regards to his seven public records requests as the public records have been provided to him in full, even though some of the records were not provided, see exhibit #12, still relator is okay with the records that were provided.” Relator continues to seek statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.00 “per public record request[.]” Respondent opposes his request for damages.
{7}
{8} “Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with
{9} “In general, a public-records mandamus case becomes moot when the public office provides the requested records.” State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 156 Ohio St.3d 482, 2019-Ohio-1827, 129 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 2008-Ohio-6253, 899 N.E.2d 961, ¶ 43; accord State ex rel. Martin v. Buchanan, 152 Ohio St.3d 68, 2017-Ohio-9163, 92 N.E.3d 869, ¶ 5, quoting State ex rel. Eubank v. McDonald, 135 Ohio St.3d 186, 2013-Ohio-72, 985 N.E.2d 463, ¶ 1 (“Mandamus will not lie to compel an act that has already been performed.“).
{10} The parties agree that the requested public records have been provided and received to Relator‘s satisfaction. We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. That ruling does not, however, render moot Relator‘s demand for statutory damages. State ex rel. Martin v. Greene at ¶ 8.
{11} Even if a relator does not prevail on the mandamus claim, he or she may still qualify for an award of statutory damages. State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 130, 2020-Ohio-3686, 161 N.E.3d 575, ¶ 13, citing State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13, 2018-Ohio-5108, 123 N.E.3d 887, ¶ 22 and Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 22, 2018-Ohio-5110, 123 N.E.3d 895, ¶ 32. A request for the production of public records is governed by the version of Ohio‘s
{12} A requester of public records “shall be entitled to recover the amount of statutory damages set forth in this division” if the requester made the request in writing by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail; the request fairly describes the public record or class of public records; and the public office failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section.
{13} “The amount of statutory damages shall be fixed at one hundred dollars for each business day during which the public office or person responsible for the requested public records failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section, beginning with the day on which the requester files a mandamus action to recover statutory damages, up to a maximum of one thousand dollars.”
{14} “The court may reduce an award of statutory damages or not award statutory damages” if two conditions are satisfied under
{15} Relator provided evidentiary materials demonstrating that he delivered to Respondent by certified mail a written request fairly describing the public records requested. Respondent does not dispute this fact. Relator also demonstrated that Respondent failed to comply with the obligation in
{16} Relator‘s request is for an award of $1,000.00 for each of his seven records requests. Respondent responds that Relator‘s award should be limited to a total of $1,000.00. We agree. Relator‘s requests, while listed separately on seven sheets of paper, were all delivered at the same time in one certified mailing.
{17} We further decline to reduce Relator‘s statutory damages award, as the condition in
{18} Respondent contends that a well-informed clerk of courts reasonably would believe that seeking clarification to ensure the requester received the correct records would not constitute a failure to comply with the obligations of
{19} None of the evidentiary materials provided to this court demonstrate that Relator‘s requests were ambiguous or overly broad. In fact, when Respondent responded to Relator‘s requests in light of this mandamus action, the only reason listed for not providing a requested record was that “there are no documents responsive to this request.” There is no mention of an ambiguous or overly broad request. The documents from case number 2018-L-127, which were requested in Relator‘s “Request One“—the only request Kelly acknowledges having received in April 2019—were provided to Relator
{20} More importantly, Relator requested four other records in “Request One” unrelated to case number 2018-L-127, to wit: the clerk of courts’ public records policy, a roster listing of current employees, the clerk of courts’ oath of office, and the clerk of courts’ record retention schedule. There is no identifiable or provided explanation as to why those four records were not produced upon request, even assuming there was confusion or concern with the request for 2018-L-127 documents.
{21} Therefore, this court determines that the reduction factors in
{22} Relator‘s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied as moot. The request for statutory damages is granted.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., MATT LYNCH, J., concur.
8
Case No. 2020-L-043