Commentary on State ex rel. Baker v. Treglia (2025-Ohio-2816)
Ohio Supreme Court Confirms SANE Records’ Non-Disclosure and Clarifies Limits on Statutory Damages and Costs in Public-Records Actions

1. Introduction

In State ex rel. Baker v. Treglia, the Supreme Court of Ohio confronted an inmate’s mandamus action seeking extensive public records related to his rape conviction and the personnel file of the investigating detective. William H. Baker—incarcerated at Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution—argued that the Allen County Sheriff unreasonably delayed document production and unlawfully withheld (1) the victim’s statement gathered by Allen County Children Services and (2) Sexual-Assault Nurse Examiner (“SANE”) records describing the minor victim’s post-assault examination. Sheriff Matthew Treglia countered that the contested documents were exempt and that any delay was inadvertent. The Court agreed in part with both sides: it denied the writ because the exempt records were properly withheld and all other non-exempt records were ultimately supplied, yet it awarded Baker statutory damages for the Sheriff’s two-month delay in producing 42 pages.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• No Writ Issued. The Court declined to compel further production: the Children Services victim statement is confidential under R.C. 5153.17, and the SANE documents are “medical records” excluded from the Public Records Act pursuant to R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(a) & (A)(3).
• Delay Found Unreasonable. The Sheriff’s additional 42-page release two months after receiving payment exceeded a “reasonable period of time,” violating R.C. 149.43(B)(1).
• Statutory Damages Awarded. Baker received the statutory maximum of $1,000 under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) (then-applicable 2023 version). Justice Fischer would have denied damages.
• No Reimbursement of Copy/Shipping Costs. The Public Records Act permits a public office to collect advance costs (R.C. 149.43(B)(6)); it does not authorize a court to refund them.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Coroner’s Office, 2017-Ohio-8988 – guided “reasonable period of time” analysis; a 2-month delay can be reasonable if redactions are extensive.
• State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers, 2024-Ohio-3315 – contrasted; nearly 3-month delay for few unredacted records held unreasonable.
• State ex rel. Wells v. Lakota Local Schools Bd. of Edn., 2024-Ohio-3316 – restated mandamus as a remedy under R.C. 149.43.
• State ex rel. O’Shea & Assocs. Co., L.P.A. v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 2012-Ohio-115 – established the conjunctive test for “medical record” status.
• State v. Stahl, 110 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) – recognized SANE units’ primary medical purpose notwithstanding secondary evidentiary role.
• Older appellate cases (NBC v. Cleveland, 82 Ohio App.3d 202 (8th Dist. 1992); Ingraham v. Ribar, 80 Ohio App.3d 29 (9th Dist. 1992)) affirming that medical records remain protected when possessed by law-enforcement agencies.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court marched through each disputed category, applying a strict-construction approach to exemptions while recognizing the agency’s obligation to act timely. Key steps:

1. Mootness of Most Requests – Because the Sheriff delivered 216 pages in January 2024, mandamus relief for those documents became moot under Brinkman v. Toledo City SD, 2024-Ohio-5063.
2. Detective Music’s Disciplinary Records – Baker bore the burden (per Cordell v. Paden, 2019-Ohio-1216) to prove such records exist; he offered none. No duty to produce nonexistent records.
3. Children Services Victim Statement – The statement, embedded in a Children Services intake report, constitutes an “investigation of families, children, and foster homes” under R.C. 5153.17(A)(1). Under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v), records whose release is prohibited by state law are not “public records.” Thus, confidentiality trumped disclosure.
4. SANE Records – The heart of the opinion. Applying the two-prong test from R.C. 149.43(A)(3):
   • Substantive prong: The documents “pertain to the medical history, diagnosis, prognosis, or medical condition” of the minor patient.
   • Procedural prong: They were “generated and maintained in the process of medical treatment,” notwithstanding later possession by law enforcement. The Court aligned with NBC and Ingraham on post-transfer retention of medical-record status.
   Result: The SANE examination report is exempt.
5. Unreasonable Delay → Statutory Damages – After adjusting for the month Baker awaited cost payment, 2+ months elapsed before the Sheriff discovered and sent 42 overlooked pages. Citing Mobley, that span—caused by oversight—was unreasonable. R.C. 149.43(C)(2) mandated damages ($100/day, max $1,000) from filing (20 Feb) until production (6 Mar) = 11 business days → $1,000.
6. No Refund of Copy/Shipping Fees – R.C. 149.43(B)(6) expressly authorizes pre-payment of “the cost involved.” Nothing in the Act creates a reimbursement remedy.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Clarifies SANE Record Treatment State-Wide. This is the Court’s first square statement that SANE documentation qualifies as exempt “medical records” even when lodged in a sheriff’s investigation file. Prosecuting agencies may now uniformly withhold such material from public-records requesters.
• Affirms Confidentiality of Children Services Intake Reports. By tying them to R.C. 5153.17, the Court underscores that any derivative copies residing in a law-enforcement file do not lose their protected status.
• Reinforces Timeliness Expectations. Agencies must anticipate that inadvertent oversight will not excuse multi-month gaps. Routine redactions do not justify lengthy delays.
• Cost Reimbursement Requests Foreclosed. Litigants may not seek recovery of copy/postage fees via mandamus—streamlining damages calculus in future cases.
• Statutory-Damage Jurisprudence. The narrow 6–1 split (Justice Fischer dissenting on damages) signals continuing debate over automatic damages for negligent delays, but the majority retains a strict liability posture.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus. A special lawsuit asking a court to order a government official to do something the law requires.
• Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43). Ohio law granting “any person” the right to inspect or copy public records, subject to specific exemptions.
• Medical Record (R.C. 149.43(A)(3)). Any document about a patient’s medical condition created and kept in the course of treatment. Such records are categorically exempt from disclosure.
• SANE Examination. A forensic medical exam performed by a specially trained nurse after a sexual assault—collecting evidence and ensuring medical care.
• Statutory Damages. A fixed dollar amount the law automatically awards when a public agency fails to perform its record-production duties – no need to prove actual financial loss.
• R.C. 5153.17 Confidentiality. Ohio statute sealing Children Services investigatory files; only specified parties may inspect them.

5. Conclusion

State ex rel. Baker v. Treglia fortifies two important guardrails in Ohio’s public-records landscape. First, it cements the confidential status of SANE examinations—as “medical records” they are outside the reach of the Public Records Act even when held by law-enforcement officers. Second, it reiterates that oversight or innocent mistake does not shield an agency from statutory damages when records are unreasonably delayed. On the administrative side, the opinion clarifies that requesters cannot recoup ordinary copy or mailing fees through litigation. For practitioners, the decision offers a clear roadmap: anticipate strict scrutiny of redaction delays, treat child-services and medical documents as presumptively exempt, and advise clients that statutory damages remain a near-automatic remedy for tardy disclosure.