Mandamus & Public Records Act: In Camera Review of Redacted Records and Civ.R. 36(B) Clarifications

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State ex rel. Mauk v. Sheldon, 2025-Ohio-1221, involves a mother, Andrea Mauk, who lost her son in a traffic accident and sought public records from two agencies—the Richland County Sheriff’s Office (the “sheriff”) and the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS)—to discover what happened to her son’s personal effects and to prompt policy reforms. When the agencies either declined to produce certain records, or provided redacted versions, Mauk brought an original action in mandamus alleging violations of Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. She also sought statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. The Supreme Court was asked to determine (1) whether the sheriff’s delayed discovery responses resulted in conclusive admissions under Civ.R. 36, (2) whether certain requested body-camera footage existed and was withheld, (3) whether the redacted public-records requests were properly withheld under statutory exemptions, and (4) whether ODPS’s production delay entitled Mauk to damages or attorneys’ fees.

Summary of the Judgment

Per curiam, the Court reached the following conclusions:

• The sheriff’s failure to answer requests for admission within 28 days did not produce conclusive admissions under Civ.R. 36(A), because withdrawal or amendment of those deemed admissions is permitted under Civ.R. 36(B) when doing so aids disposition on the merits and causes no prejudice.
• The sheriff did not improperly withhold non-hospital body-camera footage, because relator never specifically requested footage from the crash scene; her oral request was limited to footage at the hospital.
• Because the sheriff redacted portions of the requested records (requests Nos. 6, 10, and 11) without a clear factual basis in the record for the claimed exemptions, the Court ordered the unredacted records filed under seal for in camera inspection and held in abeyance relief as to those requests.
• ODPS’s eventual production of the requested body-camera footage mooted that portion of the mandamus claim. ODPS’s delay in providing that footage—though nearly four months—did not amount to bad faith, and the Court concluded the delay was reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, relator was not entitled to statutory damages, attorney fees, or costs from ODPS.
• The combined motions to compel and for sanctions against the sheriff were denied as moot or unsupportable.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Balson v. Dodds, 62 Ohio St.2d 287 (1980): Civ.R. 36(B) withdrawal of admissions may be inferred from contesting them on summary judgment.
• Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66 (1985): Failure to reply to Civ.R. 36 requests results in admissions unless the court grants withdrawal under Civ.R. 36(B).
• State ex rel. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 160 Ohio St.3d 540, 2020-Ohio-5371: Elements and burdens in a public-records mandamus action under R.C. 149.43.
• State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St.3d 79 (1988): When exemptions are challenged, the court must scrutinize the records and release non-exempt portions.
• State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 87 Ohio St.3d 535 (2000): Authority for in camera inspection of unredacted records when exemption claims are challenged.
• State ex rel. Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104512, 2017-Ohio-300: Two-to-three month delays in redaction of voluminous records may be reasonable.
• State ex rel. Pike Cty. Coroner’s Office, 153 Ohio St.3d 345, 2017-Ohio-8988: Two-month delay to redact autopsy reports held reasonable.
• State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, 150 Ohio St.3d 127, 2016-Ohio-8195: Six-business-day delay to redact body-camera footage held reasonable.

2. Legal Reasoning

Civ.R. 36 Admissions: Under Civ.R. 36(A), a matter is deemed admitted if not timely answered by the responding party. But Civ.R. 36(B) allows withdrawal or amendment of admissions if (1) it will assist in resolving the merits and (2) the requesting party would not be prejudiced. The Court treated late answers from the sheriff as timely under Civ.R. 36(B), noting that relator suffered no prejudice and merits adjudication is paramount.

Mandamus & Public Records (R.C. 149.43): To secure mandamus relief, relator must prove by clear and convincing evidence that she requested identifiable public records and that the public office failed to produce them. Exemptions from disclosure “must fall squarely” within statutory language, and a redaction is deemed a denial unless authorized by law. Because the sheriff’s affidavits lacked detail about the claimed exemptions—R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(dd) (Social Security numbers), (mm) (victim phone numbers), and (h) (law-enforcement investigatory records)—the Court ordered in camera filing of unredacted documents.

Mootness & Damages: ODPS eventually produced the redacted body-camera footage after relator filed suit, mooting that claim. Relator sought damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) ($100/day up to $1,000) and attorney fees under R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b), but the Court found the four-month delay reasonable in light of the volume of footage, the backlog in ODPS’s redaction unit, and clear communications to relator about status. No bad faith was shown.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies several aspects of Ohio public-records mandamus practice:

• Late answers to Civ.R. 36 requests in mandamus proceedings do not automatically become binding admissions if withdrawal under Civ.R. 36(B) promotes resolution on the merits without prejudice.
• When a public office redacts responsive records under R.C. 149.43, the office must be prepared to file unredacted copies for in camera review if the requester challenges the exemption claims.
• Redaction or delay alone will not support statutory damages or attorney fees unless the requester shows by clear and convincing evidence that the delay was unreasonable or the office acted in bad faith.
• Specificity in requests for video or audio footage is critical; a general request for “body-cam footage” may be limited to the context actually requested (hospital versus crash scene).

Future litigants will cite this case both for its procedural holdings on Civ.R. 36 in original actions and for its instructions on how courts will evaluate claims of exemption and delays under the Public Records Act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: An extraordinary writ that compels a public official to perform a clear legal duty.
• Civ.R. 36(A) & (B): A request for admissions must be answered in 28 days; unanswered requests are admitted, but the court can allow withdrawal/amendment to focus on the case’s merits.
• Redaction as Denial: Under R.C. 149.43(B)(1), any redacted portion of a public record is treated as if the office refused to disclose that portion, unless a statute clearly authorizes the redaction.
• In Camera Inspection: A confidential review by the judge of unredacted records to determine whether claimed exemptions apply before disclosing or ordering disclosure of non-exempt material.
• Statutory Damages & Fees: If a public office unreasonably delays or wrongfully denies a request, the requester may recover up to $1,000 in damages, plus attorney fees and costs, but only upon clear proof of bad faith or unreasonable delay.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Mauk v. Sheldon reinforces Ohio’s strong public-records jurisprudence: agencies must respond within a reasonable time, justify every redaction, and maintain transparent correspondence with requesters. The decision balances the need for prompt access to government information against legitimate privacy and law-enforcement interests. It emphasizes that procedural rules like Civ.R. 36(B) exist to secure decisions on the merits, and that requests for in camera review are the proper vehicle for testing exemption claims. By clarifying these principles, the Court has provided a roadmap for both public offices and litigants on how to handle mandamus actions under R.C. 149.43 going forward.