“Reasonable Period” Redefined: State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. Phillips (2025) and the Automatic $1,000 Cap for Delayed Public-Records Compliance

1. Introduction

Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) imposes two core duties on state and local offices: (i) produce requested public records and (ii) do so within a reasonable period of time. What happens when the office ultimately complies but drags its feet for months? The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. Phillips, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2081, provides a definitive answer: the request for mandamus becomes moot, yet the requester is still entitled to the Act’s statutory damages—here, the full $1,000—even without proving any additional harm.

The judgment cements two practical rules:

A delay of approximately three months (98 days) in producing readily identifiable public records is per se unreasonable.
Once unreasonableness is shown, the court will award the maximum statutory damages ($1,000) without need for further evidence of bad faith.

It also clarifies that prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(C) is unavailable in public-records mandamus actions, closing the door on a theory occasionally asserted by incarcerated requesters.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Relator Tony Fenstermaker, an inmate, requested three categories of records from Union County Prosecutor David W. Phillips: (1) the prosecutor’s office records-retention schedule, (2) annual certified statements prepared under former R.C. 309.16 for 2016-2022, and (3) the prosecutor’s cashbook/journal under R.C. 2335.25 for the same period. The timeline unfolded as follows:

20 Mar 2024 – Request received by certified mail.
22 Mar 2024 – Prosecutor acknowledges receipt and demands pre-payment of copy costs.
10 Jun 2024 – After silence, Fenstermaker files a mandamus action.
28 Jun 2024 – Prosecutor produces all requested records.
17 Jun 2025 – Supreme Court rules.

The Court:

Denied the writ of mandamus as moot because the records were eventually produced.
Awarded Fenstermaker the statutory maximum of $1,000 under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) for the 98-day delay.
Denied prejudgment interest, holding the action is not “based on tortious conduct” within R.C. 1343.03(C).

Justice Fischer concurred in part/dissented in part, objecting to the statutory-damages award, but the majority opinion (per curiam) carried 6-1.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

a) State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters (2016-Ohio-8195)
The Court reiterated its holding that “reasonable time” is context specific, echoing Deters ¶23. Although Deters involved body-cam footage, its articulation of reasonableness guided the 2025 Court to measure Prosecutor Phillips’s 98-day delay.

b) State ex rel. DiFranco v. South Euclid (2014-Ohio-538)
Cited for the proposition that “the absence of any response for two months” is inherently unreasonable. The Court used DiFranco ¶21 as a comparator, concluding that three months is likewise excessive.

c) State ex rel. Striker v. Smith (2011-Ohio-2878)
This case established that mandamus becomes moot once records are provided. By invoking Striker ¶22, the Court disposed of Fenstermaker’s prayer for coercive relief.

d) State ex rel. Woods v. Lawrence Cty. Sheriff’s Office (2023-Ohio-1241)
Confirmed that statutory-damages claims survive mootness, ensuring the Court retained jurisdiction to decide monetary relief.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Existence and Public Nature of the Records – Uncontested; both parties agreed the requested documents were public records maintained by the prosecutor.
Mootness of Mandamus – Under Striker, the writ is unnecessary once compliance occurs. Thus, only damages remained.
Statutory-Damages Formula – R.C. 149.43(C)(2) sets $100 per business day after the filing of mandamus, capped at $1,000. Because more than ten business days elapsed (98 total days), the cap applied.
Determination of Unreasonableness
- No statutory deadline exists, so “reasonable period” is fact-based.
- Phillips acknowledged the request promptly but offered no adequate justification for a 98-day lag.
- Legacy databases (2016-2018) might slow retrieval, yet the prosecutor failed to show actual impediments or explain delay for newer records (2019-2022) or the retention schedule.
- By analogy to DiFranco’s two-month benchmark, 98 days is unreasonable.
Prejudgment Interest Denied – R.C. 1343.03(C)(1)(a) applies only to civil actions “based on tortious conduct.” Public-records mandamus is equitable/statutory, not tort. The Court refused to graft interest onto the Public Records Act where the General Assembly had not provided for it.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Public-Records Administration

Quantitative Benchmark: The Court did not expressly declare a bright-line rule, but by condemning a 98-day delay as unreasonable absent extenuating circumstances, it sets a practical ceiling. Offices will likely treat anything longer than ~60 days as legally precarious.
Automatic $1,000 Exposure: By readily awarding the maximum, the Court signals a low tolerance for unexplained delays. Public agencies may face budgetary pressures to modernize record-keeping to avoid repetitive damages.
Mootness Doctrine Reinforced: The decision reiterates that obtaining the documents terminates the coercive aspect of the lawsuit, incentivizing belated compliance but underscoring that damages can still accrue.
Prejudgment-Interest Barrier: Litigants will likely abandon interest claims in similar mandamus actions, narrowing pleadings and streamlining litigation.
Equitable Considerations for Inmates: The Court validated that incarcerated requesters enjoy identical statutory protection, reinforcing equal access to information.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: A court order compelling a public official to perform a legal duty. Unlike ordinary lawsuits, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used when no adequate alternative exists.

Statutory Damages (R.C. 149.43(C)(2)): An automatic monetary award—$100 per business day up to $1,000—intended to deter public offices from delaying or denying access to records. The requester need not prove actual financial loss.

Reasonable Period: A flexible standard; courts weigh the volume of records, ease of retrieval, need for legal review, and any extenuating circumstances. Here, 98 days was unreasonable.

Prejudgment Interest (R.C. 1343.03): Interest that accrues on damages from the time a claim arises until judgment is entered. Applied mainly in tort actions; the Court clarified it does not apply in statutory-mandamus cases.

5. Conclusion

State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. Phillips crystallizes the enforcement teeth of Ohio’s Public Records Act. By deeming a three-month delay unreasonable and automatically levying the $1,000 statutory maximum, the Supreme Court of Ohio has:

Provided practitioners with a practical timeline for compliance (significantly less than 98 days).
Confirmed that statutory damages remain live even after belated compliance.
Foreclosed prejudgment-interest claims in public-records mandamus actions, simplifying future pleadings.

The decision thus strengthens transparency across Ohio’s public institutions, placing agencies on notice that unexplained delay is costly, while assuring requesters—incarcerated or otherwise—that the Act’s remedies are robust and readily available.