Summary
The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment in Kimani Ware’s mandamus action seeking records under Ohio’s Public Records Act. The court held that the personnel-file request was moot because the records had been provided, and that records related to Ware’s criminal case could not be compelled without the judicial finding required by Ohio Revised Code section 149.43(B)(8). The court denied Ware’s requests for court costs and statutory damages, concluding that he had not established bad faith or clearly and convincingly shown that the request was transmitted by certified mail.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ware's request for the two personnel files was moot after respondents provided the documents.
- Whether Ware could compel production of the serology report, arrest report, and direct indictment information sheet without the sentencing judge's finding required by R.C. 149.43(B)(8).
- Whether Ware was entitled to court costs based on respondents' alleged bad faith.
- Whether Ware was entitled to statutory damages for respondents' alleged failure to promptly respond to his public-records request.
Holdings
- A public-records mandamus claim becomes moot when the public office provides the requested documents, and respondents were entitled to summary judgment because Ware presented no evidence showing a remaining genuine issue of material fact concerning the personnel files.
- An incarcerated person seeking public records concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution cannot compel production under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) without a finding by the sentencing judge or the judge's successor that the information is necessary to support an apparently justiciable claim.
- Ware was not entitled to court costs because no writ issued and he failed to establish that respondents acted in bad faith when they made the records available after the mandamus action began.
- Ware was not entitled to statutory damages because he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondents failed to comply with R.C. 149.43(B), including failing to prove that he transmitted the request by certified mail.
Key quotations
“A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction * * * to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution * * *, unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record under this section and the judge who imposed the sentence * * * with respect to the person, or the judge’s successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.” (¶ 11)
“At best, the evidence in the record regarding whether Mr. Ware transmitted his public records request to Respondents by certified mail was “evenly balanced,” and therefore, did not satisfy Mr. Ware’s clear and convincing burden of proof.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
In June 2020, Kimani Ware allegedly mailed a certified-mail public-records request to the Summit County Prosecutor's Office seeking two personnel files, a serology report, an arrest report, and a direct indictment information sheet. The prosecutor's office stated that it had no record of receiving the request and became aware of it only when Ware filed this mandamus action in July 2021. The office then sent Ware documents and an explanation concerning the requested records, and later resent them after the initial mailing was returned for an insufficient address. Ware was incarcerated and had not obtained the judicial finding required by R.C. 149.43(B)(8) for access to records concerning his criminal case.
Procedural history
Ware filed a mandamus action under R.C. 149.43 after allegedly receiving no response to a June 2020 public-records request. After the action was filed, respondents sent a letter and documents addressing the request, although the first mailing was returned for an insufficient address and was resent. The Ninth District granted respondents' motion for summary judgment and denied Ware's requests for court costs and statutory damages.