State ex rel. Macksyn v. Spencer (2025-Ohio-2116)
The Supreme Court of Ohio’s New 21-Day “Produce-or-Certify” Rule for Prison-Email Public-Records Requests

1. Introduction

In State ex rel. Macksyn v. Spencer, the Supreme Court of Ohio confronted a long-running skirmish between an incarcerated individual, Delanor L. Macksyn, and key employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC). Macksyn alleged that the officials failed to comply with multiple public-records requests under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43). His requests—which spanned emails, kites, grievances, body-camera footage, and law-library video—culminated in a mandamus action seeking disclosure and statutory damages.

The Court’s per curiam opinion, released 18 June 2025, creates an important procedural precedent: when emails (or other electronic records) are requested, a prison official must, within 21 days, either produce them and certify the production date or formally certify their non-existence. Failure to do so leaves the agency exposed to statutory damages and further judicial scrutiny.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Limited Writ Granted. For the March 12, April 4 and April 21, 2024 requests seeking staff emails about Macksyn, the Court issued a limited writ compelling respondents to either supply the emails and certify the production date or certify that no responsive emails exist—within 21 days.
• Balance of Mandamus Denied. Requests for kites, grievances, body-worn-camera video, and law-library footage were either satisfied, properly denied, or unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
• Motions Denied. The Court rejected six collateral motions by the relator, including motions to strike, to take judicial notice, and to rebut service.
• Statutory Damages Deferred. Determination of R.C. 149.43(C)(2) damages awaits respondents’ compliance with the limited writ.
• Concurrence/Dissent. Chief Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Brunner, would have ordered production of one additional informal complaint and awarded $1,000 statutory damages for that discrete failure.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. State ex rel. Cleveland Association of Rescue Employees v. Cleveland, 2023-Ohio-3112 – Established that requests for discrete ranges of emails are not inherently overbroad. The Court leaned on this case to hold that Macksyn’s narrowed email windows (12–30 days) were proper.
2. State ex rel. Slager v. Trelka, 2024-Ohio-5125 – Upheld DRC’s practice of inspection-only access to video when inmates cannot possess digital media. It justified Spencer’s decision to let Macksyn view, rather than receive copies of, surveillance footage.
3. State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana County Jail, 2024-Ohio-4969 – Approved a “produce-or-certify” limited writ with a 21-day compliance window. The Court imported that remedial template wholesale into the present opinion.
4. State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 2021-Ohio-1419, and State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst., 2024-Ohio-2694 – Clarified that a relator must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence and wrongful withholding of records; sworn denial of existence generally defeats mandamus.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court proceeded category-by-category, applying two core principles:

1. Clear-and-Convincing Evidence Standard. A relator must demonstrate both a clear legal right and the respondent’s clear duty. Where affidavits conflict, the Court examines objective indicia (email chains, dates, content) to see which account is more credible.
2. Narrowly Tailored Remedy. Rather than a sweeping writ, the Court issued a limited writ focused on unresolved email requests. It mirrored Brown by giving respondents a binary compliance path—produce or certify.

Email Requests. The Court emphasized that Spencer’s affidavit was silent on emails, that internal DRC correspondence never addressed the email component, and that respondents raised no overbreadth or exemption defense. These factors tipped the evidentiary scale in Macksyn’s favor on the existence of unresolved email requests.

Video & Body-Cam Footage. Applying Slager and OAC 5120-9-19(B)(3), inspection sufficed. For body-cam footage, Spencer’s sworn statement of non-retention blocked relief.

Kites & Grievances. The Court found the record too equivocal to say that any remained unproduced, so mandamus was denied as to those items.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Formalizes a 21-Day Compliance Clock. While Brown provided the template, Macksyn extends the “produce-or-certify” mandate specifically to email requests within correctional settings.
• Shifts Evidentiary Burden. Agencies can no longer rely on generalized statements of compliance; they must show emails were provided or do a sworn “no-records” certification.
• Clarifies Inspection-Versus-Copy Rule for Inmates. Reaffirms that inspection satisfies the Public Records Act where institutional security rules forbid copies.
• Statutory Damages Strategy. By deferring damages until after compliance, the Court encourages cooperation while preserving the penalty as leverage.
• Administrative Consequences. Prison record officers must institute robust email-search protocols and calendar systems to meet the 21-day deadline or risk mandatory damages (up to $1,000) and adverse precedents.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus

A special court order telling a public official to do something required by law. In Ohio, it is the chief enforcement mechanism for the Public Records Act.

Limited Writ

A mandamus order tailored to a specific subset of records or actions, rather than granting the entire relief sought.

Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43)

Ohio’s statute guaranteeing public access to government records, subject to specific exemptions.

“Produce-or-Certify”

A remedial command requiring the agency to either (i) turn over the requested documents and state when they were produced, or (ii) affirm—via sworn certification—that no responsive records exist.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

An intermediate burden of proof—more than a “preponderance” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The relator must establish a high degree of probability of the facts.

Kite

In Ohio prisons, an internal message form used by inmates to communicate with staff. Often doubles as a written public-records request.

5. Conclusion

State ex rel. Macksyn v. Spencer carves out a pragmatic yet potent rule for prison-records disputes: within 21 days, produce the emails or swear they do not exist. The decision tightens agency accountability, particularly in the digital era where emails are easily overlooked but highly discoverable. It also preserves institutional security by allowing inspection-only access to prohibited media while keeping statutory damages in reserve as a compliance incentive. Future litigants—incarcerated and free-world alike—will almost certainly invoke Macksyn whenever an agency drags its feet on electronic-record requests. Meanwhile, Ohio correctional facilities must refine their email-search and certification protocols, lest they face expedited writs and escalating damages under the Public Records Act.