State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. VanEerten

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Tony Fenstermaker's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a cashbook or journal from the Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The court held that Fenstermaker failed to present clear and convincing evidence rebutting the prosecutor's affidavit that no such record existed and therefore also denied statutory damages.

Holdings

1. A relator will not receive mandamus relief that was not requested in the complaint; because Fenstermaker's complaint sought only production of the cashbook, his mandamus claim was limited to that record.
2. Mandamus relief is unavailable when uncontroverted evidence shows that the requested public record does not exist, and a public office has no duty to produce a record it does not possess.
3. A public-records requester is not entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) when the public office complied with R.C. 149.43(B) by informing the requester that the requested record does not exist.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Fenstermaker was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling production of a cashbook or journal that the prosecutor's office stated did not exist.
2. Whether Fenstermaker was entitled to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) based on the office's failure to produce the requested cashbook.

Disposition

writ_denied