State ex rel. Whitfield v. Burkhart

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a public-information officer may not redirect a public-records request to another institutional employee when the officer is responsible for responding to such requests. Because the requested inmate kites were produced after the mandamus action was filed, the court denied the writ as moot but awarded $500 in statutory damages for unreasonable delay. The court treated the five requests as a single request for damages purposes; the chief justice concurred in part and dissented regarding the amount of damages.

Holdings

1. Production of the requested records rendered Whitfield's mandamus claim moot, so the writ was denied as moot.
2. A public-information officer at a correctional institution who receives a public-records request generally may not escape public-records duties by redirecting the requester elsewhere within the institution.
3. An inmate's kite is a public record unless specific contents are subject to another public-records exemption.
4. Burkhart's delay was unreasonable because five requests for the inmate's own kites resulted in only six pages without redactions.
5. Requests concerning the same general subject matter and transmitted to the same custodian on the same day are treated as a single request for calculating statutory damages, even if transmitted separately.
6. Burkhart was not entitled to a reduction or denial of statutory damages because a well-informed custodian could not reasonably believe that redirecting the request and stating that kites were not public records complied with the Public Records Act.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Whitfield's mandamus claim was moot after Burkhart produced the requested kites.
2. Whether an inmate's kites are public records subject to disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act.
3. Whether a public-information officer may redirect a public-records request to another employee within the correctional institution.
4. Whether Burkhart's delay in producing the records was unreasonable for purposes of statutory damages.
5. Whether Whitfield's five requests constituted one request or multiple requests for calculating statutory damages.
6. Whether statutory damages should be reduced or denied under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) or (b).

Disposition

writ_denied