Clark v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (2025-Ohio-2473):
Ohio Supreme Court Reaffirms the State’s Non-Delegable Duty to Retrieve and Produce Public Records Held by Private Prison Operators

1. Introduction

In State ex rel. Clark v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, 2025-Ohio-2473, the Supreme Court of Ohio confronted yet another dispute between incarcerated plaintiff Thomas Clark and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (“DRC”) about access to prison records under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43). Clark, now housed at the state-run Lebanon Correctional Institution (“LCI”), sought copies of (i) electronic “kites” (internal prisoner-staff messages) he had submitted while at the privately-operated North Central Correctional Complex (“NCCC”), and (ii) a new chow-hall menu in effect at LCI.

The controversy raised three core questions:

• Must an inmate route every public-records request through the institutional “public-information officer”?
• Can prison staff satisfy the Public Records Act merely by forwarding a request to another official, or must they ensure the ultimate production?
• Does DRC bear legal responsibility for records physically housed at a privately-operated facility under contract with the State?

The Court’s answers—granting the writ in part, denying it in part, and awarding statutory damages—clarify the allocation of duties among prison staff, the scope of state liability for private-prison records, and the practicalities of inmate requests.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Writ Granted in Part: DRC must provide Clark copies of 13 electronic kites originating at NCCC.
• Writ Denied in Part: No relief for Clark’s request for an LCI chow-hall menu; the requesting inmate was properly directed to unit staff.
• Statutory Damages: Clark awarded \$1,000 (maximum under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) at the time), but court costs denied because he filed in forma pauperis.
• Procedural Ruling: Clark’s motion to file “rebuttal evidence” was denied; the proffered materials were either not true rebuttal evidence or already in the record.
• Majority & Separate Opinions: 5-justice per curiam majority; Chief Justice Kennedy concurred/dissented (arguing the menu should also be produced and statutory damages granted); Justice Fischer would have denied damages altogether.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• State ex rel. Ware v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2024-Ohio-1015 — pluralities held that a public office complies with R.C. 149.43 when a non-custodian employee directs a requester to the proper custodian. Clark extends this principle, but stresses that the direction must be accurate and effective.
• State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Jail, 2024-Ohio-4969 — reaffirmed the “quasi-agency” test: records held by private contractors performing governmental functions are public records. Clark explicitly applies Brown, obliging DRC to retrieve NCCC records despite private operation by Management & Training Corporation (“MTC”).
• State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2021-Ohio-1176 — foundational case on the quasi-agency doctrine, referenced to gauge whether private-entity records are public.
• State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419 & State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke, 2023-Ohio-3096 — defined “kite” requests as valid electronic delivery under R.C. 149.43(C) and clarified obligations of prison employees.
• State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio DRC, 2022-Ohio-1765 — held electronic kites are public records because they document institutional operations.
• State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Forsthoefel, 2022-Ohio-3580 — reiterated that counsel’s legal arguments are not evidence; used to exclude Clark’s proffered rebuttal exhibits.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Requester Need Not Use a Single Custodian. DRC’s internal policy designates a “public-information officer” at each institution, but the policy did not say inmates must route requests exclusively through that person. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) uses the indefinite article “a,” allowing delivery to any public office or person responsible for the records. Therefore, Clark’s kites to the inspector’s office at LCI were legally sufficient.
2. Forwarding vs. Fulfilling. Relying on Ware, the Court recognized that a non-custodian may redirect a request, but only if that redirection actually leads to production. Here, LCI inspectors promised to obtain the NCCC kites and forwarded the request, yet no records were produced. That failure kept DRC out of compliance.
3. Quasi-Agency Doctrine & Private Prisons. Applying Brown, the Court held that records prepared by MTC (operating NCCC) remain public under the quasi-agency test. DRC, having contracted out prison operations, retained a non-delegable obligation to retrieve and disclose the kites.
4. Chow-Hall Menu Request. For the menu, Lieutenant Holley’s response—telling Clark to obtain a copy from unit staff—was deemed compliant under Ware because it identified the proper internal source, and Clark supplied no evidence that he followed up. (Chief Justice Kennedy, dissenting, argued Holley was himself a “person responsible” once he acknowledged possessing the menu.)
5. Statutory Damages. Because Clark’s March request was delivered electronically and DRC failed to comply, statutory damages of \$100/day up to \$1,000 were mandatory; good faith is irrelevant (Horton v. Kilbane, 2022-Ohio-205).
6. Rebuttal Evidence Standard. The Court reaffirmed that rebuttal evidence must “explain, refute or disprove new facts” introduced by the opposing party (Rule 12.06(B); McNeill). Clark’s proposed exhibits were either argument, already in the record, or unrelated, so leave was denied.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

• Broader Access to Private-Facility Records. State agencies can no longer hide behind privatization; they must actively obtain and release records held by contractors. Expect increased requests directed to agencies rather than private operators and potential renegotiation of contract terms about recordkeeping.
• Clarified Workflow for Prison Requests. Staff who receive a request cannot simply “pass the buck.” If they promise to forward it, the agency remains accountable. Prisons may respond by formalizing clear, trackable referral procedures.
• Statutory-Damages Exposure. The \$1,000 cap will incentivize prompt compliance because delay after litigation commences is expensive. Justice Fischer’s separate opinion signals an ongoing debate about curbing damages awards, foreshadowing legislative or judicial refinement.
• Divergence Within the Court. The Chief Justice’s partial dissent suggests future cases may revisit whether merely identifying the correct custodian satisfies the Act when the employee indisputably has the record in hand.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official or entity to perform a clearly defined legal duty.
• Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43): Requires Ohio public bodies to provide copies of public records “within a reasonable time” at cost upon request.
• Electronic Kites: E-mail-like internal messages prisoners send to staff; considered public records because they document official activity.
• Quasi-Agency Test: If a private contractor performs a governmental function, records it prepares to carry out that function are “public” where the government can access and monitor them.
• Statutory Damages: Fixed monetary award (\$100/day, max \$1,000) to incentivize compliance when an agency unjustifiably withholds records.
• Forward-and-Fulfill Principle (post-Ware): An employee not responsible for a record may direct the requester elsewhere, but the agency remains liable if the record never materializes.

5. Conclusion

State ex rel. Clark v. DRC fortifies two major propositions in Ohio public-records jurisprudence:

1. The state’s disclosure duty survives privatization of public functions, compelling agencies to reach into contractor files and retrieve responsive documents.
2. Intra-office “referrals” do not absolve an agency when records ultimately go unproduced; the duty persists until copies are actually delivered or a lawful exemption is invoked.

By coupling these holdings with the statutory-damages award, the Court sends a clear message: contractual arrangements and internal bureaucratic channels cannot be used to frustrate the transparency Ohio law demands. Agencies that rely on private partners or layered custodial structures must install reliable procedures—or face liability.