Clark v. DRC (2025): Referral-Response Rule & No Procurement Duty for Out-of-Custody Records under Ohio’s Public Records Act

1. Introduction

State ex rel. Clark v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2025-Ohio-2475, is the Ohio Supreme Court’s latest exploration of an inmate’s right to obtain public records and the correlative duties of a state correctional institution. The relator, Thomas Clark, incarcerated at Lebanon Correctional Institution (LCI), filed a mandamus action alleging that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) failed to comply with two separate May 2024 public-records requests:

• Request #1 (May 27): A paper copy of all JPay kite logs from 2018 to the present.
• Request #2 (May 28): A paper copy of a 24 May 2024 email sent to his unit case manager regarding a court award.

The Court denied the writ and statutory damages, holding that DRC (1) had no duty to obtain records belonging to another institution (North Central Correctional Complex, NCCC) and (2) satisfied the Public Records Act when staff referred Clark to the official custodian capable of providing the requested email. Chief Justice Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part, contending that the referral amounted to an unlawful denial.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Key Holdings
1. Under R.C. 149.43, a public office has no affirmative obligation to seek or procure records not within its possession or control.
2. An institution complies with the Public Records Act when an employee who is not the custodian directs the requester to the proper custodian or location of the record.
3. Because no violation of R.C. 149.43(B) occurred, the relator was not entitled to mandamus relief or statutory damages.
4. A request for rebuttal evidence may be granted only insofar as the evidence rebuts “new facts” brought by the respondent.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• State ex rel. Horton v. Kilbane, 2022-Ohio-205 – reaffirmed that a public office need not furnish records outside its possession.
• State ex rel. Ware v. DRC, 2024-Ohio-1015 – plurality held that referral to the proper custodian satisfies the Act; cited directly by the majority.
• State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke, 2023-Ohio-3096 – similar “referral” fact-pattern; inmate’s request redirected to public-information officer.
• State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 2011-Ohio-2878 – clerk not required to obtain judge’s records.
• State ex rel. Gilreath v. Cuyahoga Cty. JFS, 2024-Ohio-103 – no duty to retrieve another agency’s emails.

Collectively, these cases provided the doctrinal scaffolding for two propositions: (1) possession/control as the threshold trigger of duty, and (2) referral as a permissible compliance mechanism. The majority synthesized them to craft a clearer “Referral-Response Rule” for intra-agency requests.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. No Duty to Procure NCCC Records
   Myers, LCI’s public-information officer, produced only the kite-logs generated while Clark was housed at LCI. The majority emphasized that R.C. 149.43 imposes duties only with respect to records that the particular office “possesses or controls.” Clark’s contention that Myers had earlier “pulled” an NCCC record was deemed irrelevant; a discretionary favor does not morph into a statutory obligation.
2. Referral Satisfies the Act
   Regarding the May 28 email, staff member C. Wallace told Clark, “See your Unit Manager.” Leaning on Ware and Griffin, the Court held that such referral is adequate when the employee is not the custodian and directs the requester to the appropriate one. Because Clark never followed that referral, the Court found no clear non-compliance.
3. Statutory Damages Criteria Unmet
   Statutory damages (up to $1,000) require proof that the public office failed to comply with R.C. 149.43(B). No such failure was established, thus damages were denied.
4. Rebuttal Evidence
   The Court allowed Clark’s exhibit (an earlier kite) because it directly rebutted DRC’s claim that requests must go through the public-information officer. The accompanying affidavit, largely argumentative, was excluded.

3.3 Impact & Future Implications

The decision’s twin rules—“No Procurement Duty” and the “Referral-Response Rule”—will likely reshape the strategic landscape for both inmates and public offices:

• Operational Clarity for Agencies – Institutions may confidently limit production to records they hold and may respond to mis-directed requests by referral, reducing internal administrative burdens.
• Procedural Roadmap for Inmates – Requesters must now track down the correct institutional custodian (e.g., a unit manager, inspector or records coordinator). Failure to pursue the directed path may foreclose mandamus relief.
• Litigation Gatekeeping – Courts will see fewer “gap” cases because litigants must show they completed the referral loop before seeking judicial intervention.
• Policy Drafting – Expect agencies to codify explicit referral language in orientation handbooks and internal policies to pre-empt challenges.
• Doctrinal Tension – The Chief Justice’s dissent flags a potential schism: whether merely pointing to a custodian can ever amount to denial. Future panels (or legislative tweaks) may refine when referral crosses into obstruction.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

5. Conclusion

Clark v. DRC cements two practical guideposts within Ohio’s public-records jurisprudence. First, a public office’s duty is bounded by possession and control; it need not become a records hunter on the requester’s behalf. Second, an office or employee can fulfill its statutory obligation through a good-faith referral to the proper custodian. Together, these holdings streamline institutional workflows while simultaneously obliging requesters to target the correct repositories. The partial dissent signals that the last word on “referral versus denial” has not yet been spoken, but for now, the majority’s rules mark the operative blueprint for navigating Ohio’s Public Records Act in the correctional context and beyond.