Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a writ of mandamus requiring a public-records custodian at the Toledo Correctional Institution to identify records responsive to Mark Griffin’s request concerning COVID-19 cases among staff and inmates, state the copying cost, and provide the records upon payment. The court held that Griffin’s electronic prison-kite submission qualified for statutory damages under Ohio’s Public Records Act and awarded him $1,000. Three justices dissented, reasoning that the custodian had already identified the responsive daily status sheet and its cost.
Holdings
- Read in context, Griffin's April 28 communication was a request for public records concerning the number of TCI staff and inmates who had tested positive for COVID-19, rather than merely a rejection of the custodian's prior offer or a request for nonpublic medical records.
- A public-records custodian has a clear legal duty to identify records responsive to a public-records request, inform the requester of the cost of obtaining copies, and offer to provide the records at cost.
- Transmission of a public-records request through the JPay prison-kite system constitutes electronic submission under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) and satisfies the statutory transmission requirement for an award of statutory damages.
- Griffin was entitled to the statutory maximum of $1,000 in damages because the custodian continued failing to comply with R.C. 149.43(B) after the mandamus complaint was filed.
Questions Presented
- Whether Griffin's April 28 communication constituted a request for public records under Ohio's Public Records Act.
- Whether the public-records custodian had a clear legal duty to identify records responsive to Griffin's request and offer copies at cost.
- Whether Griffin's transmission of the request through the prison's JPay kite system constituted electronic submission sufficient to support statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
- Whether Griffin was entitled to statutory damages and, if so, in what amount.
- Whether Griffin was entitled to an order requiring production of a separate 56-page document.
Disposition
writ_granted
Cases Cited (6)
- State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St. 3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 22-24(followed)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, 148 Ohio St. 3d 595, 2016-Ohio-8195, 71 N.E.3d 1076, ¶ 19(followed)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, 857 N.E.2d 1208, ¶ 30, 33(followed)
- State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St. 3d 168, 2011-Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 22(followed)
- State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood, 86 Ohio St. 3d 385, 392, 715 N.E.2d 179 (1999)(followed)
- State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d 130, 2020-Ohio-3686, 161 N.E.3d 575, ¶ 15-18(limited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…