Ohio Supreme Court Restricts Statutory Damages in Public-Records Mandamus: State ex rel. Robinson v. Wesson

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s May 28, 2025 announcement in State ex rel. Robinson v. Wesson (Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1874) clarifies when a relator may obtain statutory damages in a mandamus action under the Ohio Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43). The relator, Timothy Robinson, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the release of requested public records, statutory damages for the alleged unlawful withholding, and numerous procedural rulings (motions to strike evidence, to proceed on damages, etc.). The court denied the writ and all related relief, with six justices concurring and Chief Justice Kennedy partially dissenting. This decision establishes a more exacting standard for statutory-damages awards and underscores strict compliance with procedural rules in mandamus proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The court denied the writ of mandamus compelling additional record disclosures.
The court declined to award statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2), concluding that Robinson had not satisfied the threshold requirements for such relief.
All of Robinson’s ancillary motions—to strike the respondent’s evidence, to proceed directly to a judgment on damages, and for proof of service—were denied as procedurally improper.
Six justices (Fischer, DeWine, Brunner, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan) concurred in full; Chief Justice Kennedy concurred in part (denial of mandamus) but dissented in part regarding statutory-damages relief.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The opinion develops and distinguishes several key precedents under the Public Records Act:

State ex rel. Cramer v. Auglaize Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs (2004-Ohio-3034): held that statutory damages are mandatory when a public office “knowingly” withholds records and the relator prevails on the merits.
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Akron Metro. Park Dist. (1997-Ohio-413): recognized the court’s discretion to reduce or waive statutory damages for substantial compliance or de minimis violations.
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Union Twp. Police Dept. (2015-Ohio-1925): emphasized the necessity of a clear demand and refusal before statutory damages can attach.

Building on these cases, the Robinson decision confirms that the relator must both prevail on the merits of the mandamus petition and demonstrate a “knowing” or “willful” violation of the Act—and must preserve the issue through timely procedural motions.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning can be divided into three principal components:

Threshold for Statutory Damages: The majority held that statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) are not automatic upon filing a mandamus petition. Instead, the relator must prove that the public office: (a) received a valid public‐records request, (b) knowingly failed or refused to comply, and (c) did so without substantial justification.
Procedural Posture: Robinson attempted to shortcut the usual sequence by filing motions to strike respondent evidence and to proceed immediately to damages. The court rejected this approach, reaffirming that mandamus petitions follow the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s own procedural rules (notably Rules 12.04 and 12.05 of the Supreme Court Rules for Proceedings in the Court).
Discretion to Deny Motions: Even if a relator could show a knowing violation, the court retains discretion—under Beacon Journal—to adjust or deny statutory damages when the public office demonstrates good-faith efforts to comply or the violation is de minimis. Here, no record was made on the merits, so the court could not assess that good faith or lack thereof.

Impact

This decision will have the following consequences:

Narrower Path to Damages: Relators must be prepared to litigate the merits fully before seeking statutory damages. Piecemeal motions to strike or to proceed on damages will likely be denied.
Heightened Procedural Discipline: Courts will enforce strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s procedural rules in mandamus actions, reducing dilatory or tangential motions.
Encouragement of Early Settlement: Public offices may be more willing to resolve disputes on the merits before summary rulings on damages or fees become contested issues.
Guidance for Lower Courts: Trial and appellate courts in Ohio must follow the same sequence—answer, briefing, evidence, judicial resolution—before any award of statutory damages is considered.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: A writ compelling a public official to perform a duty required by law. In public-records cases, it demands release of non-exempt records.
Statutory Damages: A penalty set by statute (R.C. 149.43(C)(2))—up to $100 per day—to compensate relators when records are unlawfully withheld.
“Knowing” Violation: A conscious or deliberate failure to comply with a records request; mere neglect or oversight does not suffice.
Rule 12.04 Dismissals: Summary dismissals of meritless petitions (or petitions failing basic procedural requirements) without full briefing or oral argument.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Robinson v. Wesson marks a significant refinement in Ohio’s public-records jurisprudence. By demanding full proof on the merits before entertaining statutory-damages claims, the Supreme Court of Ohio reinforces procedural order and curbs premature motions aimed at securing penalty awards. Practitioners and public bodies alike must now plan mandamus actions with a clear, step-by-step litigation strategy: file the petition, answer the merits, develop the record, and only then address whether statutory damages are warranted. This decision will guide courts and litigants for years to come in the proper handling of Public Records Act cases.