Exhaustion Doctrine Inapplicable to Public-Records Mandamus:
Comprehensive Commentary on State ex rel. Brown v. Sackett (2025-Ohio-2080)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State ex rel. Brown v. Sackett establishes an important clarification in Ohio public-records jurisprudence: an inmate need not exhaust the administrative grievance procedure before seeking a writ of mandamus to compel production of public records under R.C. 149.43. Additionally, the Court re-emphasised the “at-cost” limitation on copying charges, disallowing labour costs for redaction, and addressed when statutory damages are proper.

Parties

• Edward Brown – Relator, an inmate at Lake Erie Correctional Institution (“LECI”).
• Laura Sackett – Respondent, warden’s secretary at LECI and the CoreCivic employee responsible for responding to public-records requests.

• Whether Brown was required to exhaust the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) three-step grievance procedure before filing a public-records mandamus action.
• Whether Sackett unlawfully denied or delayed two public-records requests: (i) records and video of an alleged 2022 assault; and (ii) the management contract between ODRC and CoreCivic.
• Whether Brown was entitled to statutory damages and court costs.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Exhaustion Rejected. The Court unanimously held that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to a mandamus action brought under R.C. 149.43, distinguishing such actions from ordinary conditions-of-confinement litigation.
2. Assault-related Records. The writ was denied because Sackett’s sworn statement that no responsive records existed went unrebutted. Brown also failed to further specify time and date after being invited to do so. No statutory damages were awarded for this request.
3. ODRC–CoreCivic Contract. The Court granted a conditional writ compelling Sackett to provide a paper copy once Brown pays $158.05 (actual copying $124.05 + postage $34.00). The attempted $48 labour charge for redaction violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1).
4. Statutory Damages. Because Sackett failed to produce the contract “at cost and within a reasonable period of time,” Brown was awarded the maximum $1,000 under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
5. Court Costs. Denied due to Brown’s indigency affidavit. All ancillary discovery motions also denied.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke, 2023-Ohio-3096 – Defined “kite” as inmate/staff correspondence; used to confirm that Brown’s requests were written and electronically submitted.
• State ex rel. Culgan v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor, 2024-Ohio-4715 – Allocated burden of proof to relator when a custodian swears no records exist; applied to deny Brown’s assault-record claim.
• State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2012-Ohio-753 – Clarified that “at cost” excludes employee labour; pivotal for rejecting the $48 redaction fee.
• State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-4183 – Held that providing a record online does not negate duty to supply paper copies when requested; rebutted Sackett’s “online availability” argument.
• State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist., 2018-Ohio-3721 – Reaffirmed that relators in public-records actions need not show lack of adequate remedy at law; underpinned the exhaustion analysis.
• State ex rel. Humphrey v. Jago, 1996-Ohio-94 – Earlier case requiring exhaustion for conditions-of-confinement mandamus; Court distinguished this precedent because Brown’s claim was statutory (Public Records Act) rather than purely administrative.
• Nemazee v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 56 Ohio St.3d 109 (1990) – General exhaustion doctrine; cited to contrast with legislatively created separate judicial remedy in R.C. 149.43.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Statutory Structure. R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b) expressly creates a judicial mandamus remedy. Because the General Assembly provided a separate court avenue, the traditional exhaustion doctrine is displaced for public-records claims.
2. Burden of Proof on Existence of Records. Once Sackett swore that no assault-related records existed, Brown had to provide “clear and convincing” evidence otherwise. He offered none.
3. Ambiguous Request Protocol. Sackett satisfied R.C. 149.43(B)(2) by seeking date/time clarification. Brown’s failure to cooperate excused further duty.
4. Cost-Calculation Rule. “At cost” equals actual out-of-pocket reproduction cost; labour is excluded. The attempted $48 fee therefore violated the statute.
5. Reasonable Time Standard. Four months (February–June) was unreasonable where only redactions and copying were needed. This triggered statutory damages, capped at $1,000 because more than ten business days had elapsed since suit filing.
6. Court Costs for Indigent Litigants. Under State ex rel. Mobley v. Bates, 2024-Ohio-2827, an indigent who prepaid nothing cannot recover costs never incurred.

Impact of the Judgment

This decision has multifaceted implications:

• Clarification for Inmate-Initiated Public-Records Actions. Inmates may go directly to mandamus without first exhausting ODRC’s three-step grievance procedure. The ruling streamlines access to records and likely will increase filings directly in the Supreme Court or courts of appeals.
• Private-Prison Operators. CoreCivic and similar entities acting as “persons responsible for public records” (R.C. 149.011(B)) must strictly adhere to the “actual cost” rule. Labour-fee practices risk statutory damages.
• Public-Records Compliance Culture. By awarding damages even while granting only partial relief, the Court underscores that custodians must both respond properly and charge correctly; otherwise statutory penalties will be imposed.
• Administrative Law Intersection. The opinion delineates the boundary between administrative grievance exhaustion (for typical prison conditions claims) and statutory rights (public-records). This demarcation may spill over into other statutory right-of-action contexts where agencies offer internal review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official to perform a clear legal duty.
• Public-Records Act (R.C. 149.43): Ohio’s open records law requiring timely access to non-exempt governmental records.
• Statutory Damages: Automatic money award (up to $1,000) available when a custodian fails to comply with the Act after a written request.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Doctrine obliging litigants to use agency processes before resorting to court, unless a statute offers an independent judicial remedy.
• Kite: Informal electronic or paper communication within an Ohio prison, used here as the vehicle for Brown’s written requests.
• At-Cost Duplication: The requester pays only the actual expense of physical materials (paper, toner, postage); employee time is excluded.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Brown v. Sackett fortifies Ohio’s commitment to transparent government records by clarifying two doctrinal points:

1. The exhaustion doctrine does not obstruct an R.C. 149.43 mandamus action, even when the requester is an inmate subject to an internal grievance process.
2. “At cost” means precisely that—no labour add-ons—reinforcing existing precedent and providing a clear rule for custodians, including private prison contractors.

By partially granting the writ, denying it in part, and awarding statutory damages, the Court balanced deference to custodial practicalities (ambiguity of requests, non-existent records) with strict enforcement of the Public Records Act’s cost and timeliness mandates. Future litigants and record custodians alike should heed the Court’s message: procedural niceties cannot be invoked to dilute statutory rights of access, and any deviation from the “actual cost” requirement invites monetary sanctions.

This commentary is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.