Separate Electronic-Kite Public-Records Requests Accrue Separate Statutory-Damages Caps Under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)

I. Introduction

In State ex rel. Teagarden v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2026-Ohio-567, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed an inmate’s mandamus action under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). Relator Trevor Teagarden, incarcerated at the Southeastern Correctional Institution but previously at the Pickaway Correctional Institution (“PCI”), alleged that ODRC failed to provide 11 categories of records he requested from PCI’s warden’s office and PCI’s library via electronic “kites.”

The case presented recurring public-records issues in the prison context: whether requested records had already been produced, whether the requester proved the records existed, the effect of duplicate requests, the obligation to pay copying costs, and how statutory damages should be calculated when requests are submitted as multiple electronic kites over several days.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The court granted the writ in part and ordered ODRC to provide five requested items—item No. 3 and item Nos. 5 through 8—once Teagarden pays any applicable copying costs. The court denied relief as to item Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 9 through 11.

Because Teagarden prevailed on five requests, the court awarded court costs and $5,000 in statutory damages (i.e., $1,000 per successful request). The decision was per curiam; FISCHER, J. concurred but would not award statutory damages.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • State ex rel. Barker v. Muskingum Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2025-Ohio-5293 and State ex rel. Ware v. Sheldon, 2025-Ohio-1768: The court relied on these cases for the core mandamus framework—mandamus is the proper vehicle to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, and the relator must prove a clear legal right and a corresponding clear legal duty by clear and convincing evidence.
  • State ex rel. Ware v. Beggs, 2024-Ohio-611: Cited for the relator’s burden to plead and prove that he requested records under R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public office failed to make them available.
  • State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty. Prosecutor, 2021-Ohio-623: Controlled the court’s approach to item No. 1 (records-retention schedule). A public office may establish by affidavit that all existing responsive records were provided; the requester must rebut with clear and convincing evidence showing additional responsive records exist.
  • State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst., 2024-Ohio-2694 and State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2012-Ohio-4246: Used to deny item No. 2 where ODRC averred the requested audio recording no longer existed; the Public Records Act does not compel production of non-existent records or require creation of records.
  • State ex rel. Mobley v. Witt, 2025-Ohio-868 (quoting State ex rel. Mobley v. Bates, 2024-Ohio-2827) and State ex rel. Culgan v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor, 2024-Ohio-4715: These cases limited Teagarden’s reliance on a records-retention schedule as proof that a specific record exists. A retention schedule’s coverage does not, by itself, clearly and convincingly establish that responsive records are currently maintained.
  • State ex rel. Laborers Internatl. Union of N. Am., Local Union No. 500 v. Summerville, 2009-Ohio-4090: Decisive for item No. 9. A duplicate request for the same record is not a new request requiring a new response; a public office has no duty to respond to a duplicate request.
  • State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, 2004-Ohio-6589, State ex rel. Slagle v. Rogers, 2004-Ohio-4354 (quoting State ex rel. Warren Newspapers v. Hutson, 1994-Ohio-5): These cases governed the “at cost” copying rule for item Nos. 4 and 10. The Act requires records be made available “at cost,” meaning actual copying cost unless otherwise fixed by statute; a requester cannot obtain mandamus relief for copies without paying required copying costs.
  • State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 2019-Ohio-1216, State ex rel. Griffin v. Doe, 2021-Ohio-3626, and State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177: These cases shaped the evidentiary analysis for item No. 11 (alleged sign/rule). The requester must prove existence and maintenance by clear and convincing evidence. An affidavit alone may be “some evidence,” but here Teagarden’s showing was insufficient.
  • State ex rel. Ames v. Big Walnut Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025-Ohio-2493: Cited for the principle that statutory damages require a determination that the office failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B).
  • State ex rel. Ware v. Galonski, 2024-Ohio-1064: Used to deny statutory damages tied to the February 20 request embedded in Teagarden’s RIB appeal; the requester bears the burden to prove qualifying transmission (hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail), and the evidence did not show certified mail.
  • State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2024-Ohio-770: Established that an electronic kite is an “electronic submission” for purposes of R.C. 149.43(C)(2) statutory damages, and also confirmed that when a court orders compliance, costs are mandatory under R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i).
  • State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-895 and State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, 2023-Ohio-2536: ODRC invoked these decisions to argue multiple requests should be treated as one for damages. The court distinguished them and refused to collapse Teagarden’s five successful requests into a single request because, unlike in those cases, Teagarden used separate kites on different days.
  • State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke, 2023-Ohio-3096: Cited for the definition of a prison “kite” as a form of written correspondence between inmate and staff—relevant to understanding the submission method for damages analysis.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. The court’s record-by-record approach

The court analyzed each of the 11 items under the Public Records Act’s basic sequence: (i) did Teagarden request a public record; (ii) does the record exist and is it maintained by the office; (iii) did the office provide it or lawfully deny it; and (iv) if copies were requested, did Teagarden pay the “at cost” copying charge.

2. Items denied because the request was satisfied or the relator failed to prove entitlement

  • Item No. 1 (records-retention schedule): ODRC produced affidavit evidence that it provided the current schedule. Under State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty. Prosecutor, Teagarden did not rebut that showing with clear and convincing evidence.
  • Item No. 2 (RIB hearing audio): ODRC presented affidavit evidence that the audio recording did not exist because the conduct violation was overturned and ODRC no longer maintained an “active record” of the hearing process. Under State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst. and State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office, there is no duty to produce or create a non-existent record. The retention schedule did not, by itself, prove the recording existed, per State ex rel. Mobley v. Witt.
  • Item No. 9 (selection plan for library aides): Denied as a duplicate request; the record had been requested earlier and the library had already responded with directions. Under State ex rel. Laborers Internatl. Union of N. Am., Local Union No. 500 v. Summerville, the library had no duty to respond to the duplicate request.
  • Item No. 10 (October 2024 monthly report): The library made the record available “at cost,” but Teagarden did not prove he paid copying costs. Under State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, mandamus does not compel free copies.
  • Item No. 4 (signed position descriptions): Teagarden demanded “signed” copies, but the policy language did not require the library to maintain signed copies; it indicated aides/clerk “shall sign and receive a copy,” suggesting the inmate maintains the signed version. The library offered unsigned copies upon payment, and Teagarden did not prove payment.
  • Item No. 11 (alleged posted sign): Denied for failure to prove existence/maintenance by clear and convincing evidence under State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden. Teagarden’s affidavit asserted the sign existed, but he failed to attach corroborating exhibits he referenced, and the library affirmatively stated no such sign or rule existed.

3. Items granted: when denial implies maintenance and no exemption is pressed

For item No. 3 and item Nos. 5 through 8, the library denied access on the ground that Teagarden was “not allowed to have” the materials (or that they were “staff related”), rather than asserting that the records did not exist or were not maintained. The court emphasized that ODRC also did not argue non-maintenance in its merits briefing. From that posture, the court concluded the requested records were maintained by the library and granted mandamus—without needing to resolve Teagarden’s separate argument about compliance with R.C. 149.43(B)(3) (the duty to provide reasons, including legal authority, when denying access).

4. The central damages holding: separate kites on different days are separate requests

The most consequential portion of the opinion concerns statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2). ODRC argued Teagarden’s five successful library requests should be treated as a single request because they were close in time, directed to the same “public office” (the library), and involved related subject matter. The court rejected this consolidation argument by distinguishing its recent decisions:

  • In Clark, 2025-Ohio-895, the requester sought two records in the same kite and on the same general topic—treated as one request for damages.
  • In State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, 2023-Ohio-2536, multiple envelopes were sent on the same day to the same office and on the same general topic—treated as one request.

Here, Teagarden sent five separate electronic kites on different days for different categories of library records. The court held these were separate public-records requests for statutory-damages purposes and awarded the maximum $1,000 per request, totaling $5,000.

C. Impact

  • Damages exposure turns on request “packaging” and timing: The opinion signals that, even within one institution and one subject area, separately submitted electronic requests—especially on different days—may generate separate statutory-damages caps. Public offices, including prison libraries and records staff, should expect higher damages exposure when they deny multiple requests rather than producing (or properly justifying withholding) records.
  • Affidavit strategy matters, but must be record-specific: The decision reinforces that affidavits can defeat mandamus by establishing production (item No. 1) or non-existence (item No. 2), but requesters can still prevail where the office does not clearly assert non-existence or exemptions and instead relies on non-statutory “not allowed” assertions (items 3, 5–8).
  • Operational lesson for agencies: “not allowed” is not a Public Records Act analysis: Denials framed as categorical prohibitions (without asserting a statutory exemption, non-existence, or non-maintenance) risk an inference that the record exists and is maintained, making mandamus relief more likely.
  • Requesters must document copying-cost payment and transmission method: The denial of items 4 and 10 and the denial of statutory damages for the February 20 “appeal request” emphasize the evidentiary value of receipts showing copying payment and proof of certified mail or other qualifying delivery methods.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Mandamus: A court order compelling a public office to perform a clear legal duty—here, to provide public records required by R.C. 149.43.
  • Clear and convincing evidence: A higher standard than “more likely than not.” The evidence must produce a firm belief in the fact asserted (e.g., that a record exists and is maintained).
  • “At cost” copies: The office must provide copies if requested, but it can charge the actual copying cost. If the requester does not pay, mandamus generally will not compel free copies.
  • Duplicate request: Re-asking for the same record after already requesting it does not necessarily create a new duty to respond; under Ohio precedent, offices are not required to re-respond to duplicates.
  • Statutory damages (R.C. 149.43(C)(2)): Money awarded when an office fails to meet a duty under R.C. 149.43(B), but only if the requester used certain delivery methods (including electronic submission). Damages accrue at $100 per business day from filing suit, capped at $1,000 per request.

V. Conclusion

State ex rel. Teagarden v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. is significant less for its routine application of public-records principles (non-existence, duplication, and copying costs) than for its practical rule on statutory-damages calculation: when an inmate submits separate electronic-kite requests on different days, those submissions may be treated as separate requests that each carry their own $1,000 statutory-damages cap. The opinion thus increases the incentive for public offices—particularly within correctional institutions—to respond with legally grounded explanations and timely production, rather than blanket denials, when multiple distinct records are requested through separate transmissions.