Self‑Serving Affidavits Cannot Overcome One’s Own Confirmation Receipts: Clarifying Proof Standards in Ohio Public‑Records Mandamus

Introduction

In State ex rel. Clark v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2025-Ohio-4965, the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed and sharpened evidentiary principles governing public-records mandamus actions under R.C. 149.43. The relator, Thomas Clark, an inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution (LeCI), alleged that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) failed to produce two items requested via the prison’s electronic “kite” system: (1) the metadata for an August 26, 2024 electronic kite and (2) an electronic message from LeCI’s Education Department about electronic filing in the Supreme Court of Ohio. Although Clark submitted “confirmation receipts” acknowledging receipt of records related to the underlying requests, he argued those confirmations were submitted under duress and did not reflect full compliance.

The Court denied the writ and statutory damages, holding that a relator’s self‑serving affidavit cannot overcome his own documentary evidence indicating that the public office fulfilled the requests. The Court underscored that where records are provided before suit is filed, mandamus will not lie, and even evenly balanced evidence is insufficient to satisfy the relator’s burden of clear and convincing proof.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court, in a per curiam opinion joined by six justices (with Chief Justice Kennedy concurring in judgment only), denied Clark’s petition for a writ of mandamus and his request for up to $2,000 in statutory damages. The dispositive points were:

Clark’s own submissions showed that he sent “confirmation receipts” acknowledging receipt of records responding to his October 9 and October 16, 2024 public-records requests.
His self‑serving affidavit asserting that the confirmations were sent under duress could not contradict his own documentary evidence acknowledging receipt; the record did not substantiate duress.
Even crediting his affidavit, the evidence was at best evenly balanced, which fails the clear‑and‑convincing‑evidence standard required for mandamus relief.
Because Clark failed to prove noncompliance with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B), statutory damages were also denied.

Factual and Procedural Background

Clark’s Requests and Confirmations

Clark submitted two relevant public-records requests by electronic kite, dated October 9 and October 16, 2024.

October 9 request: He sought (a) a paper copy of a prior grievance and (b) a paper copy of “all metadata” for his August 26, 2024 electronic kite requesting audio and video recordings. He acknowledges receiving the grievance and the August 26 kite itself, but claims he did not receive the metadata. He nevertheless sent a confirmation receipt acknowledging receipt of the grievance and the August 26 kite; the confirmation said nothing about missing metadata.
October 16 request: He sought paper copies of (a) an October 9, 2024 message from LeCI Education Department announcing the ability to e‑file in the Supreme Court of Ohio, (b) a Wilmington College flyer, and (c) the first three weeks of the 2024 LeCI winter food menu. He acknowledges receiving the flyer and menu, but contends the Supreme Court message was not provided; instead, he received information on federal court e‑filing. He also sent a confirmation receipt for this request.

Clark asserted that both confirmations were obtained under duress, claiming he feared penalties if he refused to send them. His evidence showed he had grieved a “direct order” to confirm receipt on a different request not at issue, and ODRC responded that confirmations exist to ensure fulfillment and do not require false statements.

Procedural Posture

Clark sought a writ compelling production of the kite metadata and the LeCI Education Department message and requested $2,000 in statutory damages. After ODRC answered, the Court issued an alternative writ and briefing schedule. ODRC later withdrew its evidence and did not submit new evidence; thus only Clark’s evidence was before the Court. Despite that posture, the Court denied relief because Clark’s own evidence undermined his claims of noncompliance.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State ex rel. Ware v. Akron, 2021-Ohio-624. The Court reiterated the core duty under R.C. 149.43(B)(1): public offices must make copies of public records available within a reasonable time. This frames the default obligation alleged to have been breached.
State ex rel. Adkins v. Cole, 2025-Ohio-1026. Adkins held that a relator’s self‑serving affidavit cannot, by itself, overcome evidence from the respondent showing it produced records. Clark extends and sharpens that principle: a relator cannot use a self‑serving affidavit to contradict his own documentary evidence indicating fulfillment (here, confirmation receipts).
State ex rel. Ware v. Beggs, 2024-Ohio-611. The relator bears the burden to plead and prove both the request and the public office’s failure to make records available. This allocation of burden is pivotal; the Court held Clark failed to carry that burden, even when the only evidence in the record came from Clark himself.
State ex rel. Payne v. Rose, 2023-Ohio-3801. If the requester received the records before filing suit, there is no cognizable mandamus claim to compel production. Clark’s confirmations predated suit, supporting denial on this independent basis.
State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, 2023-Ohio-3645. Evenly balanced evidence does not satisfy the clear‑and‑convincing standard. The Court applied Barr as a fallback holding: even if Clark’s duress affidavit is credited, the proof at best ties, which is insufficient.
State ex rel. Mobley v. Viehweger, 2024-Ohio-4748. A requester may recover statutory damages if the court finds a failure to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). Without proven noncompliance, damages are unavailable.
State ex rel. Mack v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Cent. Records, 2025-Ohio-1332. Reinforces that damages are denied absent proof of noncompliance.
State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 2019-Ohio-1827. Cited for the definition of a prison “kite,” providing institutional context for how inmates communicate with staff and make requests.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps.

Burden and standard of proof. To obtain mandamus under the Public Records Act, the relator must prove by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the records and a corresponding clear legal duty to provide them. This includes proving that requests were made and the public office failed to make the records available. Clark’s own evidence—his confirmation receipts—undercut that showing.
Effect of confirmation receipts and the self‑serving affidavit rule. Clark’s confirmations acknowledged receipt of records responsive to both October requests, and the October 9 confirmation did not mention any missing metadata. He attempted to negate these acknowledgments with an affidavit asserting duress and partial nonreceipt. The Court emphasized that a self‑serving affidavit cannot contradict documentary evidence—particularly the relator’s own documents—establishing fulfillment. The record did not support duress: ODRC’s grievance response explained confirmations are tracking tools, not commands to lie. Accordingly, the affidavit did not carry Clark’s burden.
Alternative holdings: pre‑suit production defeats mandamus; evenly balanced evidence fails clear and convincing. The Court noted that when records are produced before suit, mandamus to compel production is not cognizable. And even if the affidavit created a factual contest, the evidence at best was evenly balanced, which fails the clear‑and‑convincing standard.

On statutory damages, the Court applied the then‑applicable version of R.C. 149.43 (enacted in 2023 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 33), while noting that the General Assembly amended and renumbered certain provisions in 2024 Sub.H.B. No. 265 (effective April 9, 2025). Because Clark failed to prove any violation of obligations under R.C. 149.43(B), damages were unavailable.

Impact and Practical Implications

For Public-Records Requesters (including inmates)

Confirmation receipts are potent evidence. When a requester issues a confirmation acknowledging receipt, that document will weigh heavily—potentially dispositively—against later claims of nonreceipt. To preserve issues, the requester should contemporaneously note any omissions in the confirmation or promptly submit a follow‑up writing that identifies specific missing items.
Duress claims require substantiation. Bare assertions that a confirmation was compelled under duress will not overcome documentary acknowledgments of receipt. Requesters alleging coercion should document who issued the order, when, and how it was communicated, and should identify contemporaneous objections or grievances tied to the specific request.
Pre‑suit production ends the case. If the records were provided before filing suit, mandamus to compel production will be denied, and statutory damages will generally be unavailable. Consider seeking administrative or informal clarification first, and file suit only if there is a genuine impasse.
Metadata issues remain open. This case did not decide whether “metadata” associated with an electronic kite is a “public record” or the scope of any duty to produce it. That question remains for a future case with a clean factual record.

For Public Offices and Corrections Agencies

Confirmation protocols validated. The Court implicitly approved the administrative practice of using confirmation receipts to document fulfillment, provided the practice does not require false statements. Agencies should maintain clear, neutral language and preserve copies of confirmations.
Document completeness. When producing records, agencies may wish to identify which items are provided and, if any are withheld (e.g., due to exemptions or nonexistence), state that expressly. This can preempt later disputes and reinforce the evidentiary record.
Training on noncoercive practices. Because duress allegations may arise, institutions should train staff to request confirmations without threats or sanctions for accurate refusals, and to respect an inmate’s right to note omissions.

For Courts and Practitioners

Extension of Adkins. Clark extends the “self‑serving affidavit” principle beyond contradicting the respondent’s evidence to cover contradictions of the relator’s own documentary acknowledgments.
Burden can fail on the relator’s record alone. Even when the respondent offers no evidence (as here, after ODRC withdrew its submission), a petitioner can still lose if his own materials negate the claim or leave evidence in equipoise.
Clear‑and‑convincing rigor. Barr’s rule—ties go to the respondent—will continue to influence public‑records mandamus litigation where proof is thin or contested.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official or agency to perform a clear legal duty. In public‑records cases, it is used to force production of records wrongfully withheld.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A high evidentiary standard requiring the proof to produce a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the allegations—more than “more likely than not” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Public Record (R.C. 149.43): Records kept by public offices that document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office. They must generally be made available within a reasonable time.
Statutory Damages (R.C. 149.43(C)): A monetary remedy available when a public office fails to meet obligations under the Public Records Act. Under the version applied in Clark, damages were available up to $2,000, but only upon proof of noncompliance.
Electronic “Kite” and Confirmation Receipt: In prison settings, a “kite” is an internal message from an inmate to staff. A “confirmation receipt” is the inmate’s acknowledgment that the response to a request (such as a public‑records request) has been received.
Self‑Serving Affidavit: A sworn statement by a party asserting facts that benefit the party. Such affidavits must be supported by or consistent with other credible evidence; they cannot alone overcome contrary documentary evidence, particularly the affiant’s own documents.
Duress (in this context): Coercion that deprives a person of free will in making a statement. To negate a prior acknowledgment (like a confirmation receipt), duress must be supported by concrete, contemporaneous evidence; mere fear or generalized concern is insufficient.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. clarifies two important pillars of Ohio public‑records mandamus practice. First, a relator cannot defeat his own documentary acknowledgments of receipt—such as confirmation receipts—with a bare, self‑serving affidavit, including one asserting unsubstantiated duress. Second, where the evidence is at best evenly balanced, the relator fails the clear‑and‑convincing burden, and where records are produced before suit, mandamus to compel production will not lie. Together, these principles strengthen administrative practices that document fulfillment and caution requesters—especially inmates using internal systems—to contemporaneously record any omissions or objections. The decision also reinforces that statutory damages hinge on proven noncompliance with R.C. 149.43(B). Although the opinion leaves open substantive questions about the status and scope of “metadata” as a public record, it offers a clear procedural roadmap: contemporaneous confirmations matter, and unsupported attempts to retract them will not suffice.