In the case of State ex rel. Ware v. Stone, 2023-Ohio-3284, an appellate court held that the prosecutor’s office provided the requested public records in a reasonable time when the initial public record request envelope did not contain an actual record request and the prosecutor’s office complied with the request within eleven days of receiving it.
In this case, the inmate argued that the prosecutor’s office unduly delayed by not sending the public records request upon the first request, by sending it to the wrong address, and by producing the public records eleven days after the certified complaint. In response, the prosecutor’s office argued that there was no public record request in the initial envelope, the records were sent to the return address on that envelope, and that eleven days is not an undue delay. The appellate court agreed with the prosecutor’s office.
In support of its decision in favor of the prosecutor’s office, the appellate court explained that the inmate did not transmit a request to an individual in charge of public records at the prosecutor’s office. The appellate court further explained that the prosecutor’s office received the actual public records request when the request was attached to the complaint and complied with the request within eleven days of receiving it, which was a reasonable timeframe.
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.