Summary
In this mandamus action seeking public records, the Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ as moot because the requested inmate bank records were provided after the complaint was filed. The court also denied statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) because the relator failed to prove his written request was delivered by hand or certified mail, and denied court costs because there was no evidence of bad faith in the delayed production. The case reinforces that mandamus will not issue for an already-performed act and that strict compliance with delivery methods is required for statutory damages under Ohio's Public Records Act.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the writ of mandamus should issue to compel production of public records when the records have already been provided.
- Whether the relator is entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) when he failed to prove that his written request was delivered by hand or certified mail.
- Whether the relator is entitled to court costs under R.C. 149.43(C)(3) when there is no evidence of bad faith.
- Whether the court should accept the affidavit and exhibits attached to the complaint as substantive evidence.
Holdings
- The writ of mandamus is moot because the requested records have already been provided; mandamus will not lie to compel an act already performed.
- Statutory damages are available only to a requester who proves by clear and convincing evidence that his written request was delivered by hand or certified mail; Martin failed to provide such evidence, so statutory damages are denied.
- Court costs under the Public Records Act may be awarded only if the court orders production of records or upon a finding of bad faith; neither condition is met here, so costs are denied.
- The motion is moot because the affidavit and exhibits do not affect the analysis of mootness or the statutory damages/costs claims.
Key quotations
“Mandamus will not lie to compel an act that has already been performed.” (¶6)
“a public-records mandamus case becomes moot when the public office provides the requested records.” (¶7)
“under the version of R.C. 149.43(C)(2) that was in effect at the time that Martin made his public-records request, statutory damages were available only to a requester who proved by clear and convincing evidence that his written request for public records was delivered by hand or certified mail.” (¶9)
Factual background
Martin, an inmate at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, submitted a public-records request on or about December 15, 2017, to the warden's office through the prison kite system, requesting his inmate bank-account information for November and December 2017. Greene acknowledged receipt but gave no further response. Martin filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus on January 16, 2018. Eight days later, on January 24, 2018, the facility provided him the requested records.
Procedural history
Martin filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus on January 16, 2018. Eight days later, the facility provided him with the requested records. The court denied a motion to dismiss, granted an alternative writ, and set a schedule. Martin filed a memorandum but no evidence or reply brief. He later moved to accept the affidavit and exhibits attached to his complaint as substantive evidence.