In the case State ex rel. Adams v. Ohio State Univ., 2020-Ohio-2843, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1804, an Ohio appellate court found relator was entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring respondent university to comply more completely with his public records request under R.C. 149.43, as respondent had not explained why its response covered only a single month of the 93 sought and only one topic of the 17 ultimately suggested by relator. Respondent was to provide a further, more detailed response either furnishing documents included in the full chronological range of relator’s request and covering all of relator’s submitted search terms, or explaining why those documents did not exist, did not constitute public records, or were otherwise unavailable. Since the response, which had taken four months, was not unreasonably delayed, relator was not entitled to statutory damages and attorney fees, but this did not preclude revisiting the issue if the response to the writ warranted it.
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.