No Late Respondent Evidence and No Deflecting Public-Records Duties: The Ohio Supreme Court’s Mandamus Blueprint in State ex rel. Howard v. Shuler

Introduction

In State ex rel. Howard v. Shuler, 2025-Ohio-4964, the Supreme Court of Ohio delivered a wide-ranging public-records mandamus decision that tightens procedural discipline in original actions and reaffirms strict evidentiary burdens for withholding records under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. The case arises from an incident at the North Central Correctional Complex (NCCC) on March 29–30, 2021, and multiple “kites” (internal inmate communications) by relator Jeffery L. Howard, an inmate then at Mansfield Correctional Institution (MANCI), seeking investigative records, security video, grievance dispositions, and the identity of the staff member who ordered his segregation.

The respondent, Lorri Shuler—an employee of private prison operator Management & Training Corporation (MTC) working, by all indications, at NCCC—denied or deflected portions of the request, asserting exemptions without evidentiary support and instructing Howard to seek certain items from a different inspector. The Court granted mandamus in part, ordering production of the investigation report(s), the requested security video, and the grievance disposition, awarded the statutory maximum $1,000 in damages, and denied several procedural motions. The decision clarifies critical points:

• Respondents cannot file additional evidence after the Supreme Court’s evidentiary deadline under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B), even when omission was inadvertent.
• Conclusory assertions of exemptions—without specific factual support—do not justify withholding public records.
• Security-camera footage is not categorically exempt as an “infrastructure record”; the custodian must prove the exemption’s applicability.
• A records custodian may not deflect a request by telling the requester to obtain the record from someone else when the custodian is trained and responsible to respond.
• Mandamus claims for items furnished before suit are non-cognizable; and a relator must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent actually received the public-records request.

Chief Justice Kennedy and Justices DeWine, Brunner, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Justice Fischer concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the award of statutory damages.

Summary of the Opinion

• Motions: The Court denied all pending motions. It refused Howard’s request to amend his damages claim (futile where only $1,000 is available), denied Shuler’s motion for leave to file “corrected” evidence post-deadline (not permitted by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B)), denied Howard’s motion to strike Shuler’s filed evidence (he received what was filed), and denied his motion to strike Shuler’s motion for leave.
• Mandamus Granted in Part:
  • Investigation reports: Ordered produced. Shuler failed to prove any exemption—her conclusory claim of confidential informant endangerment under R.C. 149.43(A)(2) lacked evidentiary support.
  • Security video: Ordered produced. Shuler failed to prove the “infrastructure record” exemption under R.C. 149.433(A); no evidence that the footage discloses more than a simple spatial layout.
  • Grievance disposition: Ordered produced. Shuler improperly told Howard to ask a different inspector.
• Mandamus Denied in Part:
  • Identity of staff who ordered segregation: Denied because the information was provided to Howard in 2021, before this suit—no cognizable claim in mandamus.
  • March and May 2024 kites: Denied because Howard failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Shuler received those requests; no duty to respond.
  • The kites themselves: Denied; no prior public-records request for those kites was shown.
• Statutory damages: Awarded $1,000 (the statutory maximum). The qualifying July 2021 kite encompassed a single request for damages purposes; R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Justice Fischer would not award damages.
• Court costs and fees: Denied (Howard filed an indigency affidavit and offered no reason to deviate from standard cost assessment).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 2008-Ohio-1770: Establishes that Public Records Act exemptions are strictly construed against the custodian, who bears the burden to show the record “falls squarely within” the exception. The Court relied on this to reject Shuler’s unsupported exemption claims.
• Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-Ohio-5371: Requires specific factual support (not conclusory assertions) to prove exemptions; emphasizes it’s not enough to say a record is probably exempt. Applied to both the investigation report and security video claims.
• State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177: Reiterates that vague or conclusory assertions are inadequate to withhold records; used to underscore the evidentiary deficiency.
• State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2018-Ohio-5111: Held that security video that shows only spatial relationships is not an “infrastructure record.” The Court mirrored this analysis to order the NCCC video produced.
• State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-895: When a request is sent to a designated public-records recipient, that person must respond. The Court analogized this to Shuler’s duties, rejecting her attempt to redirect Howard.
• State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 2018-Ohio-5110 and Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dupuis, 2002-Ohio-7041: Allow extrinsic evidence to establish mootness. Here, similar reasoning showed pre-suit satisfaction, not mere mootness.
• State ex rel. Payne v. Rose, 2023-Ohio-3801 and State ex rel. Chapnick v. E. Cleveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2001-Ohio-1585: If a record is provided before suit, the mandamus claim fails outright (non-cognizable), as “mandamus does not lie to compel an act already performed.”
• State ex rel. Ware v. Gabbard, 2025-Ohio-1022: A prior public-records request is a prerequisite to mandamus. This defeated claims based on the March and May 2024 kites where receipt by Shuler was unproven.
• State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419: Sets the relator’s burden—clear and convincing evidence of a right to the record and the respondent’s duty; central to rejecting mandamus for requests not shown to have reached Shuler.
• State ex rel. Ware v. Sheldon, 2025-Ohio-1768: Reinforces that respondents cannot file late evidence after the evidence deadline; used to deny Shuler’s motion for “corrected” evidence.
• State ex rel. Horton v. Kilbane, 2022-Ohio-205: Explains statutory damages accrual—$100 per business day, capped at $1,000—from the filing of the mandamus action; the Court awarded the maximum.
• State ex rel. Ware v. Akron, 2021-Ohio-624: Multiple items in a single communication count as a single public-records request for damages computation; applied to the July 2021 kite.
• State ex rel. Straughter v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-1543: No court costs to award where the relator files an indigency affidavit; cited to deny costs.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds along three principal axes: (1) strict procedural compliance in original actions; (2) rigorous evidentiary burdens for withholding records; and (3) a disciplined application of mandamus prerequisites and remedies.

1) Procedural discipline: No late respondent evidence under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B)

S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B) permits the relator to seek leave to file rebuttal evidence; it does not allow a respondent to submit additional or “corrected” evidence after the evidentiary deadline. The Court denied Shuler’s motion despite affidavits describing a firm-wide computer outage and an inadvertent filing error. Citing the rule’s text and consistent with State ex rel. Ware v. Sheldon, the Court held the evidentiary window is closed to respondents after the deadline, and inadvertence does not reopen it. This is an emphatic directive to counsel litigating original actions in the Supreme Court: filing logistics must ensure complete submissions by the deadline.

2) Substantive burdens: Exemptions require specific factual proof

• Investigation reports (confidential law enforcement investigatory records): Shuler argued release would endanger a confidential informant under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(d). But she offered no evidence—only a conclusory assertion in briefing. Where an exemption is not apparent on the face of the request or record, the custodian must present “specific factual support” showing the record “falls squarely within” the exception. Without affidavits or other proof, the assertion failed, and the Court ordered production.
• Security-camera footage (infrastructure record): R.C. 149.433(A) shields records that disclose the configuration of critical systems or the structural configuration of a building, but excludes “a simple floor plan” showing only spatial relationships. Shuler posited that footage might reveal blind spots, risking an attack on staff. Again, without sworn evidentiary support, the claim fell short. Relying on Rogers, the Court concluded that absent proof that the footage reveals more than spatial relationships, the “infrastructure” exemption does not apply.
• Grievance disposition (improper deflection): The inspector’s office cannot sidestep a request by directing the inmate to a different inspector when the custodian is trained to receive and respond to such requests and the record pertains to the custodian’s institution. The Court deemed Shuler’s deflection improper and ordered production.

3) Mandamus boundaries: Prior request, receipt, and pre-suit satisfaction

• Receipt and duty: A relator must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent had a duty to respond, which in turn requires proof that the respondent actually received the public-records request. For the March and May 2024 kites, the logs did not show forwarding to NCCC or any involvement by Shuler. A staff note stating “I have forwarded your request to NCCC” was unsupported by system entries or responses from NCCC. Without proof of receipt by Shuler, no duty arose; mandamus was denied.
• Pre-suit satisfaction: Howard’s request for the identity of the staff member who ordered segregation had been answered in December 2021, long before this action. Under Payne and Chapnick, such a claim is not merely moot; it is non-cognizable in mandamus because the act has already been performed.
• Kites as records: Howard sought the kites themselves, but did not show he made a public-records request for those kites. A prior request is a prerequisite to mandamus; the claim was denied.

4) Statutory damages and costs

The July 2021 kite qualified under R.C. 149.43(C)(2): it was submitted electronically, described the records, was directed to the person responsible, and the office failed to comply with R.C. 149.43(B). Damages accrue at $100 per business day from the filing date, capped at $1,000; the Court awarded the maximum, noting the requests in the kite counted as one request for damages purposes (Ware v. Akron). The Court denied leave to expand Howard’s damages claim (to $7,000) because only $1,000 was available and such an amendment was unnecessary. Court costs were denied given Howard’s indigency affidavit, and no special fee shifting was ordered.

Impact

• Procedural practice in original actions:
  • Respondents must meet the evidence deadline; S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B) offers no safety valve for “corrected” or “supplemental” respondent evidence. Law firms should implement redundancy checks to avoid inadvertent partial filings.
  • Relators can expect the Court to enforce the rule’s asymmetry: only relators may seek leave for rebuttal evidence, underscoring the need for respondents to present a complete record on time.
• Public-records compliance (especially in corrections settings):
  • Exemptions require evidence, not assertions. Custodians seeking to invoke the “confidential law enforcement investigatory record” or “infrastructure record” exemptions should prepare detailed affidavits (or, where appropriate, submit materials for in camera review) articulating specific risks and how disclosure would trigger the statutory prongs.
  • Security video is not per se exempt. Absent proof that footage reveals more than spatial relationships or the configuration of critical systems, video must be produced.
  • Custodian responsibility is non-delegable. Telling an inmate to ask a different inspector is not an adequate response when the custodian is charged with receiving and responding to requests or when the record logically resides with the custodian’s institution.
  • Document routing. Prisons and private operators should maintain clear, auditable logs showing when and to whom kites/requests are forwarded. Without proof of forwarding and receipt, relators cannot carry their burden—and agencies cannot rely on informal assurances to defeat mandamus or damages.
• Mandamus and damages strategy:
  • Pre-suit provision of records defeats mandamus on those items; agencies that promptly produce reduce exposure, though statutory damages can still accrue on unfulfilled portions.
  • Request packaging matters. Multiple asks in one communication count as one request for damages. Requesters seeking to preserve separate damages streams should be aware that combining items may limit recovery to a single $1,000 cap.
  • Partial dissent signals scrutiny of damages. Justice Fischer’s position suggests an ongoing debate over when damages should be awarded; agencies may find sympathetic ears for narrow constructions of the “person responsible” or compliance prongs, but the majority’s framework here is controlling.
• Contract prisons and “public office” responsibilities:
  • The Court proceeded on the premise that an MTC employee acting as an institutional inspector is a “person responsible for public records.” Private operators performing governmental functions should expect full Public Records Act obligations to apply to their personnel in those roles.
• Statutory landscape:
  • The Court noted recent amendments to R.C. 149.43 in 2024 Sub. H.B. 265 (effective April 9, 2025) and applied the 2023 H.B. 33 version. Practitioners must confirm current numbering and text when litigating damages or obligations under the Act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: A court order compelling a public office or official to perform a clear legal duty. In public-records cases, it forces compliance with R.C. 149.43.
• Public record: A record kept by a public office that documents its organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities, unless an exemption applies.
• “Kite”: An internal written communication from an inmate to prison staff. A kite can double as a public-records request if it clearly seeks records under R.C. 149.43.
• Confidential law enforcement investigatory record (R.C. 149.43(A)(2)): A record pertaining to a law enforcement matter whose release would create a high probability of disclosing specified sensitive information (e.g., endangering a confidential informant). Proof requires specific facts, not speculation.
• Infrastructure record (R.C. 149.433(A)): A record disclosing configuration of critical systems or structural configurations of a building. It does not include a “simple floor plan” showing only spatial relationships. Security video is not automatically an infrastructure record.
• Clear and convincing evidence: A heightened standard requiring a degree of proof producing a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established; used to assess a relator’s right to a writ.
• Non-cognizable (vs. moot): If the requested act occurred before the suit, there is no mandamus claim to begin with (non-cognizable), as opposed to mootness arising during litigation.
• Statutory damages (R.C. 149.43(C)(2)): A fixed remedy—$100 per business day, up to $1,000—when certain prerequisites are met (written request, to the person/office responsible, fair description of records, and a failure to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)). Multiple items in a single communication count as one request for damages.
• Alternative writ: The Supreme Court’s initial scheduling order in an original action, setting deadlines for evidence and briefing; parties must strictly comply with evidentiary submission dates.

Conclusion

Howard v. Shuler is a detailed roadmap for Ohio public-records litigation. Procedurally, it sets a bright-line rule: respondents cannot file late evidence after the Supreme Court’s deadline under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B), even if omissions were inadvertent. Substantively, it reinforces the rigorous “falls squarely within” standard for exemptions—conclusory assertions will not do—and confirms that prison security video and investigative materials are not categorically exempt absent specific, evidence-based justification. It also underscores a custodian’s duty to respond rather than redirect and clarifies that pre-suit production defeats mandamus for those items.

For requesters, the decision emphasizes the importance of documenting that a request reached the person responsible and of understanding the damages calculus when bundling multiple items in a single communication. For agencies and private operators performing public functions, the opinion urges robust documentation of request receipt and routing, considered use of sworn evidence when claiming exemptions, and strict adherence to the Supreme Court’s procedural rules. The Court’s partial award of relief—paired with the maximum statutory damages—signals both willingness to enforce disclosure and an expectation of disciplined, evidence-backed public-records practices across Ohio’s correctional institutions.