Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a writ of mandamus as moot after the Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney produced all requested public records. The court also denied the relator's requests for statutory damages and court costs, ruling that he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he submitted his public-records request via certified mail. Concurring and dissenting opinions separately addressed the evidentiary sufficiency of the relator's certified-mail return receipt versus the prosecutor's office affidavit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the writ of mandamus is moot because the requested records have been provided.
- Whether statutory damages are available when the relator has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that the request was sent by certified mail.
- Whether the relator’s motion for leave to file rebuttal evidence should be granted.
Holdings
- The writ is denied as moot because the prosecutor has already provided all requested records.
- Statutory damages are denied because the relator failed to meet the clear‑and‑convincing‑evidence burden that the request was transmitted by certified mail.
- The motion is denied because the proposed evidence does not rebut the prosecutor’s evidence and is untimely.
Key quotations
“"[U]pon request by any person, a public office or person responsible for public records shall make copies of the requested public record available to the requester at cost and within a reasonable period of time." R.C. 149.43(B)(1).” (¶ 7)
“"Statutory damages shall be awarded if a requester of public records transmits a written request to a public office by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail and the public office or person responsible for public records fails to comply with its obligations under R.C. 149.43(B)."” (¶ 10)
“"Rebutting evidence is [evidence] given to explain, refute, or disprove new facts introduced into evidence by the adverse party; it becomes relevant only to challenge the evidence offered by the opponent, and its scope is limited by such evidence."” (¶ 5)
Factual background
Alphonso Mobley Jr. alleged he mailed a public‑records request by certified mail on Nov. 13, 2023, but received no response. He filed a mandamus action on Jan. 2, 2024. The prosecutor later supplied the requested documents, though some were initially omitted. Mobley later submitted a certified‑mail receipt but no copy of the request itself.
Procedural history
Relator filed a mandamus action on Jan. 2, 2024 seeking public records and statutory damages. The prosecutor provided the records before the hearing. The court denied the writ as moot and denied damages and costs. The court also denied a motion to file rebuttal evidence.