Defining “Reasonable Clarity” in Public Records Requests and the Mootness Doctrine under R.C. 149.43

Introduction

This case arises from an original mandamus action brought by Estephen Castellon, a former inmate of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), against ODRC and one of its employees, Kelly Rose. Castellon claimed that ODRC failed to respond to several public‐records requests—two transmitted by electronic “kite” internal to the prison and two others sent by email after his release—and sought a writ of mandamus compelling production, plus statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs. The Supreme Court of Ohio considered (1) whether the writ of mandamus was still necessary after ODRC produced all requested records, (2) the relator’s entitlement to statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C), and (3) his requests for attorney fees and court costs. A majority of the Court denied relief, while Chief Justice Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that statutory damages should have been awarded.

Summary of the Judgment

Per curiam, the Court held:

Mootness of the Writ: Once ODRC produced the requested records, any mandamus remedy compelling production became moot, and the writ was denied on that ground.
Statutory Damages: R.C. 149.43(C)(2) authorizes up to $100 per business day (capped at $1,000) when a public office fails to comply with R.C. 149.43(B). To qualify a requester must identify records “with reasonable clarity” and show a clear legal duty breached. The Court found Castellon did not meet that heightened standard for his November kite requests (lacking sufficient detail to identify the records promptly) and that a three-week delay on his January requests was not unreasonable. Accordingly, statutory damages were denied.
Attorney Fees and Costs: Because Castellon proceeded pro se and filed an affidavit of indigency, he was ineligible for attorney fees and did not incur court costs; those requests were waived.
Rebuttal Evidence Motion: Castellon’s attempt to file unsworn, unauthenticated exhibits was denied for failure to comply with evidence authentication requirements.

Chief Justice Kennedy concurred in dismissing the writ as moot and in denying fees and costs, but he dissented on statutory damages, concluding that Castellon did identify his requested records with reasonable clarity and that ODRC’s categorical “five per week” limit and silence on the January requests violated R.C. 149.43(B), meriting the full $3,000 in statutory damages.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke, 173 Ohio St. 3d 485, 2023-Ohio-3096 – Defined “kite” as inmate-staff correspondence and treated electronic kite submissions as “electronic submission” under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 143 Ohio St. 3d 627, 2015-Ohio-974 – Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel public-records compliance; relator must show a clear legal right and duty.
State ex rel. Grim v. New Holland, 170 Ohio St. 3d 141, 2024-Ohio-4822 – A mandamus claim is moot once records are furnished; statutory damages claims survive mootness.
State ex rel. Mobley v. Tyack, 173 Ohio St. 3d 551, 2024-Ohio-2692 – Public-records requester must “identify with reasonable clarity” the records sought.
State ex rel. Stuart v. Greene, 159 Ohio St. 3d 39, 2020-Ohio-3685 – A 31-day interval to produce an 18-page redacted document was not per se unreasonable.
State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. Cleveland, 149 Ohio St. 3d 301, 2016-Ohio-8447 – A 24-business-day delay in producing police reports (with redactions) was not unreasonable under R.C. 149.43(B).

Legal Reasoning

The majority’s reasoning rests on two pillars:

Mootness: Once a public office delivers the records, the only live issue is statutory damages (if sought) because mandamus to compel production is moot. See R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b) and Grim.
Statutory Damages Requirements: Under R.C. 149.43(C)(2), a requester must show:
- He submitted a written request by hand, electronic means, or certified mail.
- The office failed to comply with a duty under R.C. 149.43(B), including promptness and reasonable clarity.
The requester may recover $100 per business day after filing mandamus, capped at $1,000. But the court may reduce or deny damages if a well-informed records custodian reasonably believed (a) the actions complied with R.C. 149.43(B), and (b) the actions served the public policy of the Public Records Act.

Applying these rules, the majority concluded that:

Castellon’s initial kite listed a string of nine-digit numbers without context or dates, so ODRC could not “reasonably identify” which kites or grievances were sought.
The January email requests, though listing more identifiers, preceded production by only three weeks—within a reasonable period to retrieve, review, and, if necessary, redact or sort records.
Because ODRC did not plainly refuse or ignore the requests, but rather furnished records after follow-up in mediation, no clear breach of duty under R.C. 149.43(B) occurred.

Chief Justice Kennedy’s Dissent (In Part)

Chief Justice Kennedy argued that:

The kite form’s top-of-page label (“Request”) and “Details of Request” section made clear that the listed numbers were “communications” (i.e., kites) maintained in ODRC’s ViaPath system. Melton’s referral to the inspector (“You have to get them from the inspector”) confirmed that the November kite to Rose was understood as a kite request.
Rose’s own replies—quoting the five-cent-a-page charge and the distinction between kites and grievances—demonstrated that ODRC knew what was sought as early as November 28.
ODRC’s blanket “maximum of five per week” policy and estimated 14-day turnaround violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1)’s command to “promptly prepare and make available . . . all public records responsive to the request.”
After filing mandamus, ODRC’s public-information office and legal department effectively went silent on January requests, triggering an unreasonable delay and warranting the full $3,000 award (30 business days × $100).

Impact

This decision underscores several practical rules for public-records practitioners and custodians in Ohio:

Prompt Production vs. Mootness: Custodians should continue to produce requested records even during litigation or mandamus, since prompt production moots the need for a writ but leaves statutory-damages claims open.
Reasonable Clarity of Requests: Requesters must furnish details—record types, identifying numbers, dates—so custodians can locate them “in the ordinary course.” Broad or ambiguous lists risk denial of statutory damages.
Statutory Damages Threshold: Denial of a mandamus writ as moot does not extinguish a claim for damages; however, damages can be denied if custodians reasonably believed they complied with their duties.
Pro Se Limitations: Pro se litigants cannot recover attorney fees, and indigent filers may have their court costs waived.
Evidence Authentication: Parties in original actions must submit sworn or certified evidence; courts may strike unauthenticated exhibits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43): Establishes a requester’s right to inspect and copy public records “promptly” and within a “reasonable period,” with remedies—including mandamus and statutory damages—if a custodian fails to comply.
Mandamus: An extraordinary writ compelling a public officer to perform a clear legal duty; in records cases, it can force production of documents.
Mootness: If the relief sought has been fully granted (here, the records were produced), a court will typically dismiss the case as moot, leaving only collateral claims (like damages).
Statutory Damages: Up to $100 per business day (max $1,000) for each day after filing mandamus until compliance, unless a well-informed custodian reasonably believed compliance occurred or that the delay served the Act’s policy.
“Reasonable Clarity”: The requester’s duty to describe the records sought with sufficient detail—dates, identification numbers, subject matter—so that the custodian can locate them without guesswork.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Castellon v. Rose clarifies two critical elements of Ohio’s Public Records Act jurisprudence. First, production of records—even mid-litigation—renders a mandamus writ moot, although statutory damages claims remain. Second, requesters must describe records with reasonable clarity and custodians must respond “promptly” and within a reasonable period. While the majority found no clear breach of duty by ODRC, Chief Justice Kennedy’s partial dissent serves as a caution that unreasonably delaying production—through arbitrary volume limits or unexplained silence—risks statutory-damages awards. Public-records custodians should therefore establish clear intake procedures, avoid rigid caps or unexplained delays, and document requests and responses to minimize litigation and damages exposure.