Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Mark Griffin Sr.’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking public records from the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. The court held that Griffin failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had submitted the alleged public-records request.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Griffin proved by clear and convincing evidence that he submitted a public-records request to the Ohio Adult Parole Authority.
- Whether Griffin was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling production of the requested records under Ohio's Public Records Act.
Holdings
- A relator seeking mandamus to compel production under Ohio's Public Records Act must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he requested a public record and that the public agency failed to make the record available in response.
- Griffin was not entitled to mandamus relief because he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he delivered a public-records request to the Ohio Adult Parole Authority.
Key quotations
“Although this court liberally construes the Public Records Act in favor of access to public records, “the relator must still establish entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief by clear and convincing evidence.”” (¶ 5)
“Griffin has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that he delivered the alleged public-records request to the APA at all. Griffin is therefore not entitled to relief in mandamus.” (¶ 8)
Factual background
Griffin claimed that he mailed a public-records request to the Ohio Adult Parole Authority seeking personnel-file information about six Ohio Parole Board members who participated in his parole hearing. He did not submit a copy of the alleged request, proof of mailing, or other evidence showing that the request was delivered. The APA and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction investigated and found no record of receiving the request.
Procedural history
Griffin alleged that he mailed a public-records request to the Ohio Adult Parole Authority on or about November 12, 2020, and that the officer did not respond. He filed the mandamus action on December 29, 2020. The state denied the allegations and asserted that investigations found no record of receiving the request. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted an alternative writ, accepted evidence and briefs, and denied the writ.