Employee Directive as Compliance with Ohio’s Public Records Act: State ex rel. Ware v. Smith

Introduction

In State ex rel. Ware v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1856, decided May 27, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified how Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) applies when a non‐custodial employee of a public office—here, a prison library supervisor—receives requests for public records. Relator Kimani Ware, an inmate at Richland Correctional Institution (RCI), submitted ten “kites” seeking copies of the library’s manuals, logs, schedules, committee forms and reports. Respondent Doug Smith, RCI’s educational‐services “principal,” denied or sidestepped those requests, citing insufficient reasons or directing Ware to copy information himself or talk to the prison law‐library aide. Ware filed a mandamus action and sought statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C). The Supreme Court, by an eight-to-one vote, denied relief and held that Smith had no clear duty to produce records he did not maintain and that directing Ware to the proper librarian satisfied R.C. 149.43(B).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court first recited the mandatory duties under R.C. 149.43(B): upon any person’s request for a public record, the responsible office “shall make copies … available … within a reasonable period of time” or, if it denies the request, “shall provide … an explanation, including legal authority.”
Ware had sought ten categories of library-related records by kite between April 4 and April 9, 2023. Smith either (a) told Ware his “reason” for wanting the records was “not sufficient,” (b) said Ware could “copy down” posted notices, (c) asked Ware how he would use the documents, or (d) told Ware to see the law-library aide.
The Court held that Ware’s requests were valid public-records requests (a requester need not use the phrase “public‐records request”) but that Ware failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Smith had wrongfully withheld any records in his custody or control. Because Smith did not maintain the underlying documents and had directed Ware to the proper records custodians (the librarians), he did not violate R.C. 149.43(B). Nor did Smith’s procedural denials—telling Ware to “copy down” information or to speak to another staff member—constitute a refusal by a records custodian.
Accordingly, the Court denied the writ of mandamus and Ware’s claim for statutory damages.
Chief Justice Kennedy dissented, arguing that Smith, as the official overseeing the library, had supervisory responsibility for the requested records and that his denials and conditional responses violated R.C. 149.43(B)(3)–(4). He would have granted relief and awarded Ware $10,000 in statutory damages.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The majority relied on a line of Ohio decisions interpreting R.C. 149.43, including:

State ex rel. Grim v. New Holland (2024-Ohio-4822): mandamus is the appropriate remedy for enforcement of R.C. 149.43.
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office (2020-Ohio-5371): burden of proof and persuasion in a mandamus action under the Act.
State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Byrd (2020-Ohio-2766) and Ware v. Giavasis (2020-Ohio-5453): requesters need not cite statutory language or formally style a petition as a “public‐records request.”
State ex rel. Ware v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (“Ware I,” 2024-Ohio-1015): a plurality held that a non-custodial employee complies with the Act by directing a requester to the proper records custodian.
State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke (2023-Ohio-3096): an inmate’s kite was not wrongful when the recipient told him to submit his request to the institution’s public-information officer.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning centers on three points:

No formal magic words: R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires only “request by any person” for public records; the statute does not mandate that a requester declare “this is a public‐records request.”
Non-custodial staff and the duty to direct: under Ware I, an employee who is not the custodian but receives a public‐records request may comply by directing the requester to the proper custodian or the place where records are kept. Here, Smith averred that he did not maintain the library’s procedure manual, logs, monthly reports or committee forms and that he directed Ware to the librarian or library staff for the copies.
Requester’s purpose irrelevant: R.C. 149.43(B)(4) forbids conditioning access on disclosure of the requester’s intended use. The Court reiterated that denial of a request because “I want a copy” is no valid ground under the Act.

3. Impact

This decision will guide prison officials and other public offices in handling records requests from incarcerated persons or the public at large. Key takeaways:

Employees who are not formal “records custodians” may satisfy R.C. 149.43(B) by promptly directing requesters to the office’s designated custodian or public‐information officer.
Public offices should ensure that every employee who might receive a records request is trained to either supply the records or forward the request to the proper official.
Requesters need not recite the statute or use special labels; a simple written demand for “a copy of” identifiable records triggers the office’s duties under R.C. 149.43(B).
Statutory damages are only available if the requester proves a wrongful refusal by a records custodian.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Kite”: A written note or request from an inmate to prison staff.
Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43): Ohio law governing public access to records, mandating that records be made available on request, with minimal exceptions.
Mandamus: An extraordinary writ compelling a public official to perform a legal duty.
Records custodian: The office or person who has legal possession or control of a public record.
Statutory damages: A fixed penalty (up to $1,000) per day for wrongful denial of public records.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Ware v. Smith reaffirms that every Ohio public‐records request, no matter how informally phrased, triggers the statutory duty to furnish or lawfully deny records. It clarifies that non-custodial employees may comply by directing requesters to the designated custodian, and that the requester’s stated purpose is never a valid ground for denial. Public offices should train all front-line staff to recognize requests and to route them to the proper records‐custodian or public‐information officer. This judgment underscores the core principle: public records are the people’s records, and officials are trustees who must facilitate—not frustrate—access.