“Received, Used, or Followed”: State ex rel. Ayers v. Sackett (2025)
Fortifies Ohio’s Public-Records Duty and Dispels Exhaustion Myth for Inmate Requesters

Supreme Court of Ohio – Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2115, decided 18 June 2025

1. Introduction

State ex rel. Ayers v. Sackett is the Supreme Court of Ohio’s most recent public-records decision, handed down on 18 June 2025. The case sits at the intersection of three recurring themes:

• public-records rights under R.C. 149.43 (the Ohio Public Records Act);
• the obligations of privately-operated prisons (CoreCivic in this instance) that are nonetheless “public offices” for records purposes; and
• the procedural hurdles—or lack thereof—that incarcerated requesters must overcome before invoking mandamus.

Relator Ronald Ayers, an inmate at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution when the requests were made, sought two distinct items:

1. body-worn and fixed-camera footage of an 31 August 2023 cell search (“shakedown”), and
2. the Department of Administrative Services’ (DAS) general record-retention schedule.

Respondent Laura Sackett, the prison’s records custodian, denied both requests, triggering Ayers’s original mandamus action in the Supreme Court. The Court:

• held that exhaustion of the prison grievance process is not a prerequisite to a public-records mandamus;
• found that video footage no longer existing is a complete defense to disclosure; but
• declared that a retention schedule—even one created by a different state agency—is a “public record” because it is “received and used or followed” by the prison;
• awarded Ayers $1,000 in statutory damages; and
• denied court costs (Ayers had filed an indigency affidavit).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The unanimous per curiam opinion (with Chief Justice Kennedy concurring in judgment only and Justice Fischer dissenting in part on damages) granted the writ in part:

• Video Footage: Mandamus denied because the footage was overwritten and no longer existed. A requester bears the burden of proving existence; unrebutted affidavits attesting to non-existence defeat the claim.
• Retention Schedule: Mandamus granted. The schedule, though authored by DAS, documented the prison’s operations and was within Sackett’s custody; therefore, it was disclosable.
• Statutory Damages: Awarded $1,000 (maximum) for the wrongful denial of the schedule request.
• Court Costs: Denied because Ayers had no costs under an indigency affidavit.
• Discovery Motions: Denied as moot due to supplemental responses.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court leaned on, distinguished, or re-affirmed several key precedents:

• State ex rel. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-Ohio-5371: Reiterated that public-records mandamus is not barred by the availability of an alternative remedy; by analogy, administrative exhaustion is also unnecessary.
• Basic Distribution Corp. v. Dept. of Taxation, 2002-Ohio-794: Quoted for the proposition that where a judicial remedy is “intended to be separate” from an administrative remedy, exhaustion does not apply.
• State ex rel. Culgan v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor, 2024-Ohio-4715 & State ex rel. Pool v. Sheffield Lake, 2023-Ohio-1204: Both cases reiterate that mandamus does not issue if the requested record does not exist. Sackett relied on these to defeat the video-footage claim.
• State ex rel. Teagarden v. Igwe, 2024-Ohio-5772: Distinguished; there the Court held library materials are not records because they do not document the library’s activities. Here, by contrast, the retention schedule does document the prison’s operations.
• State ex rel. Dillery v. Icsman, 2001-Ohio-193 and State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-4788: Earlier “overbreadth” decisions. The Court used them to clarify that a request for a single but multifaceted record cannot be branded overly broad.

Sackett cited three Tenth District cases (Moore, Ware v. Bratton, and Ware v. Rhodes) that had read R.C. 2969.26’s affidavit requirement as imposing an exhaustion obligation. The Supreme Court declined to follow those holdings, emphasizing its own precedent and statutory text.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

3.2.1 Exhaustion Question

The Court began by rejecting the notion that R.C. 2969.26’s affidavit provisions—applicable in civil actions against prison officials— extend to public-records mandamus. The Public Records Act offers parallel, stand-alone remedies (Court of Claims complaint or mandamus). By design, neither is contingent on administrative grievance exhaustion. Construing the Act otherwise would contradict the statutory text (“shall be entitled to seek” a writ upon being aggrieved) and prior Supreme Court authority.

3.2.2 Existence of the Video Footage

The Court accepted Sackett’s sworn testimony that footage (a) is overwritten every 60–90 days unless marked as a “qualifying event” and (b) did not meet the “qualifying event” threshold in August 2023. Because Ayers waited until March 2024 to request the video, the file had already self-deleted. Under Culgan and Pool, an unrebutted affidavit of non-existence is dispositive. Mandamus does not compel the impossible.

3.2.3 The Retention Schedule as a “Record”

R.C. 149.011(G) defines a record as any document that is created or received and serves to document the operations of the office. The Court stressed the breadth of “received.” Sackett never disputed receipt; indeed, the schedule guided her record-keeping duties. Consequently, the schedule was within the prison’s “jurisdiction,” triggering the disclosure duty regardless of its external origin.

3.2.4 Rebuffing the Overbreadth Defense

A single document—even if lengthy—cannot be deemed overbroad; overbreadth applies where a requester asks for “any and all” documents or a near-duplication of voluminous files. Additionally, when relying on R.C. 149.43(B)(2), the custodian must affirmatively advise the requester how the records are kept. Sackett only requested “clarification”; she cited no authority and never described her filing system. The overbreadth defense therefore failed on substance and procedure.

3.2.5 Statutory Damages Computation

R.C. 149.43(C)(2):
• $100 per business day of non-compliance,
• capped at $1,000.
Because Sackett’s wrongful denial of the schedule continued well past ten business days before Ayers filed suit, Ayers was entitled to the maximum. Justice Fischer’s partial dissent would have denied damages, likely on the ground that Sackett’s position was debatable, but the majority treated the denial as objectively unlawful.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

a. Administrative Exhaustion Clarified
For nearly a decade, some lower courts—especially the Tenth District—used R.C. 2969.26’s affidavit requirement to screen inmate public-records cases. Ayers puts that practice to rest: public-records mandamus is statutorily independent; no grievance exhaustion is required.

b. “Received and Used” Test Strengthened
The Court has progressively widened what qualifies as a record: not only what a public office creates, but also what it receives and relies on. Ayers confirms that doctrine in the context of retention schedules—crucial for transparency because they control what documents survive or disappear. Private contractors operating public facilities (e.g., CoreCivic, GEO Group) now possess an unambiguous duty to disclose any external policies they adopt.

c. Practical Guidance on Overbreadth
Custodians can no longer wave the overbreadth flag merely because a single form or schedule is multi-sectioned. They must either produce the document or meet R.C. 149.43(B)(2)’s procedural burdens. The ruling offers granular guidance for practitioners drafting denial letters.

d. Data-Retention Policies under Scrutiny
Although Ayers lost the video-footage claim, the opinion foregrounds automatic overwrite practices. Agencies may anticipate future challenges alleging wrongful destruction under R.C. 149.351, particularly because the Court points out (fn. 3) that such claims lie elsewhere. Custodians will review whether overwrite cycles align with retention obligations.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: A court order directing a public officer to perform a clear legal duty.
• Public Record (Ohio): Any document—regardless of form—that is kept by a public office and documents its activities (R.C. 149.011(G)). Key word: kept includes received.
• Statutory Damages: Fixed dollar amounts set by statute to compensate requesters without proving actual monetary loss ($100/day, up to $1,000).
• Overbroad Request: A request so sweeping that it would require the agency to copy its entire filing cabinet. Asking for a single lengthy document is not overbroad.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The idea that a person must pursue all internal or agency procedures before going to court. Ayers says “no” for public-records mandamus.
• Qualifying Event (in video retention): An incident (e.g., use of force, discovery of major contraband) that triggers a duty to preserve footage beyond the automatic overwrite window.

5. Conclusion

State ex rel. Ayers v. Sackett is modest in its facts but momentous in its doctrinal clarification. The Supreme Court of Ohio:

1. Affirmed that the Public Records Act creates a self-standing judicial remedy; inmates need not exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing mandamus.
2. Extended the “received and used” principle, labeling an externally authored retention schedule as a public record subject to disclosure.
3. Refined the line between a legitimate overbreadth denial and an agency’s duty to produce a single multifaceted document.
4. Reiterated the showing required to prove non-existence of records (unrebutted sworn statements suffice).
5. Applied statutory damages vigorously, signaling to custodians that even arguable mistakes can be costly.

Going forward, public agencies—especially privatized correctional facilities— must inventory not only the records they create, but also external policies, schedules, and manuals they rely upon. Denial letters must contain legal citations and describe record-keeping systems to withstand judicial scrutiny. Meanwhile, requesters—incarcerated or not—can invoke mandamus directly, confident that Ohio’s highest court views the Public Records Act as a powerful, unconditioned transparency tool.