Clarifying Affidavits and Inmate-Records Exemptions Under Ohio’s Public Records Act
(State ex rel. Ealom v. Booth, 2025-Ohio-1025)
Introduction
In State ex rel. Ealom v. Booth, 2025-Ohio-1025, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed the interplay between affidavits attesting to the nonexistence of responsive records and the scope of inmate-records exemptions under the Ohio Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43). Relator Anthony Ealom, an inmate at Allen–Oakwood Correctional Institution, sought three categories of records concerning a May 31, 2021 flood at his former facility:
- Hazardous and infectious-waste documentation (SS-0027);
- Maintenance logs (SS-0010) of repair work; and
- Records of inmate “moves” prompted by the flood.
Respondent Glenn Booth, the prison’s public-information officer, replied that no responsive waste or maintenance logs existed and that the inmate-move records were exempt under R.C. 5120.21(F). Ealom sued for mandamus relief, statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees. The Court denied relief in all respects.
Summary of the Judgment
By per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio held:
- No Responsive Records Exist: Booth’s uncontradicted affidavit established that no hazardous-waste or maintenance-log documents existed. Ealom failed to rebut that showing by clear and convincing evidence, so mandamus relief could not issue for those two requests.
- Inmate-Records Exemption: Ealom’s third request for inmate “move” records was denied because he already possessed incident reports containing the same information. Having the data in hand precluded any clear right to compel additional production.
- No Statutory Damages, Costs, or Fees: Because Booth complied with his obligations under R.C. 149.43(B), Ealom was not entitled to damages, court costs, or attorney fees.
Analysis
1. Precedents Cited
The Court anchored its reasoning in established Public Records Act decisions:
- Affidavit of Nonexistence: State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty. Prosecutor, 2021-Ohio-623 – A public-records officer may submit an affidavit certifying that no responsive documents exist; the requester must rebut by clear and convincing evidence.
- Burden of Proof: State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, 2023-Ohio-2536 – The requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence that requested records do indeed exist in the custodian’s files.
- Inmate-Records Exemption: R.C. 5120.21(F) and R.C. 5120.21(A) – Records of inmates, including transfers between institutions, are exempt from disclosure unless a specific statutory provision overrides the exemption.
- Mootness by Possession: While not labeled as a statutory precedent, the Court applied the principle that a requester may not compel the production of documents he already possesses.
2. Legal Reasoning
The Court’s decision proceeded in two main steps:
- Affidavit and Rebuttal: Under R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b), mandamus relief requires proof of a clear right and a clear duty. Here, Booth’s unrefuted affidavit stated that no SS-0027 or SS-0010 records exist. Because Ealom submitted no evidence to the contrary, mandamus relief was inappropriate.
- Scope of the Request and Exemptions: Ealom’s third request overlapped exactly with two incident reports already in his possession. The Court held that a requester cannot demand a second production of the same information. It also noted—but did not rely on—the inmate-records exemption (R.C. 5120.21(F)) to foreclose a broader inquiry into other inmate-transfer data.
3. Impact
The ruling clarifies two critical points under Ohio’s Public Records Act:
- Affidavits Are Dispositive in the Absence of Rebuttal: Custodians who truthfully assert nonexistence of records will win mandamus unless the requester brings forward clear and convincing evidence of actual existence.
- Requester’s Burden to Identify New Records: A requester already holding the documents he seeks cannot obtain duplicate copies through mandamus. If additional or different records are desired, the requester must lodge a new, narrowly tailored request.
Future litigants should take care to:
- Probe custodial affidavits with direct evidence of missing or unproduced records.
- Draft requests to capture distinct categories of records, avoiding demands for material already obtained.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Mandamus: An extraordinary writ compelling a public officer to perform a legal duty—in this context, to produce public records.
- Affidavit of Nonexistence: A sworn statement by a records custodian that after diligent search, no documents matching the request survive.
- Clear and Convincing Evidence: A higher standard than “preponderance,” requiring the requester to show it is highly probable that responsive records exist.
- Inmate-Records Exemption (R.C. 5120.21): Ohio law shields from public disclosure certain inmate records, especially those reflecting personal data or institutional transfers.
Conclusion
State ex rel. Ealom v. Booth reinforces the procedural safeguards of Ohio’s Public Records Act. Custodians who file good-faith affidavits of nonexistence secure dismissal absent a clear and convincing rebuttal. Likewise, requesters who attempt to recapture records already in hand will find no relief by mandamus. Lawyers and pro se requesters should tailor their record‐requests carefully and compile concrete evidence before challenging custodial affidavits. This decision thus strikes a balance between transparency and custodial finality, ensuring that mandamus remains an extraordinary—but fair—remedy.
Comments