In the case of State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3028, the Ohio Supreme Court held that in an inmate’s mandamus action regarding a public record request, (1) the inmate was permitted to obtain records of the inmate’s prison-kite logs, (2) the prison must produce the emails that were requested or certify that such emails did not exist, and (3) the prison did not have to compile a list of cross-gender employees.
In this case, the inmate argued that (1) the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2022-Ohio-1765 that prison-kite logs are public records and thus the prison must respond to his request, (2) the records-keeper never provided the requested emails or otherwise responded to the request, and (3) the inmate did not receive the list of cross-gender employees as requested. In response, the record-keeper argued that (1) the inmate’s request for prison-kite logs was made before the decision in Mobley, so the kites did not have to be provided and (2) such a list did not exist, so the record-keeper would not be required to compile one. The record-keeper failed to respond to the requested emails. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the inmate regarding the prison-kite logs and the emails, but with the record-keeper regarding the list of cross-gender employees.
In support of its decision in favor of the inmate regarding the prison-kite logs, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling in Mobley simply clarified an existing right to prison-kites and did not create a new right, so the ruling could apply retroactively.
In support of its decision in favor of the inmate regarding the emails, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the record-keeper failed to respond to the request, as such, the Ohio Supreme Court was unable to determine if such emails existed. The Ohio Supreme Court explained that the record-keeper could either produce the emails or certify that the emails did not exist.
In support of its decision in favor of the record-keeper regarding the list of cross-gender employees, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the plain language of R.C. 149.43 does not require a record-keeper to make a new record by searching for or compiling information.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.