{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e7268f", "proof": "sha256:d02b116a9e5cc83fa107fbe2c431b8aac6e3f2d799f446f838990a0ae7b6f4f5", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612", "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673", "para_674", "para_675", "para_676", "para_677", "para_678", "para_679", "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "ex rel. Mobley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2589.]", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "NOTICE", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "the opinion is published.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "SLIP OPINION NO. 2026-OHIO-2589", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "THE STATE EX REL. MOBLEY, APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "COMMISSIONERS, APPELLEE.", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "may be cited as State ex rel. Mobley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2589.]", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Mandamus—Public-records requests—R.C. 149.43—Public-records requester", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "sought records from a public county office, which denied the request on", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "basis that it was duplicative of an earlier request from requester that had", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "already been fulfilled by another county office—Court of appeals granted", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "county office’s motion to dismiss because requested record was provided", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "after lawsuit was filed—In denying requester’s request for statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "damages, court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in concluding that", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "based on existing case law, county office reasonably would have believed", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "that its denial of public-records request was not a failure to comply with its", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "obligation under R.C. 149.43(B)—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "writ claim as moot and dismissing request for statutory damages affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "(No. 2025-0608—Submitted September 16, 2025—Decided July 10, 2026.)", "paragraph_id": "para_29", "court_paragraph": 2 }, { "text": "APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "No. 22AP-541, 2025-Ohio-1422.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "DEWINE, J., authored the opinion of the court, which FISCHER, BRUNNER,", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "DETERS, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, C.J., concurred in part", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "and dissented in part, with an opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "DEWINE, J.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "{¶ 1} This is a mandamus case involving a request for public records.", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "Alphonso Mobley Jr. sought records from the Franklin County Board of", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Commissioners, which denied his request on the basis that it was duplicative of an", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "earlier public-records request from Mobley that had already been fulfilled by the", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office. Adopting a magistrate’s recommendation,", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "the Tenth District Court of Appeals granted the board’s motion to dismiss because", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "the board provided Mobley with the requested record after his lawsuit was filed.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "The Tenth District denied Mobley’s request for statutory damages, concluding that", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "the board’s initial denial of the duplicative request was made in reasonable reliance", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "on case law. Mobley appealed the denial of statutory damages. Because the Tenth", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "District did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the board reasonably would", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "have believed its denial was not a failure to comply with its obligation under Ohio’s", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, we affirm its judgment dismissing Mobley’s", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "claim for a writ of mandamus as moot and dismissing Mobley’s claim for an award", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "of statutory damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "{¶ 2} Mobley sent a public-records request to the board seeking a paper", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "copy of the statement prepared by the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney for the", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "year 2020 pursuant to former R.C. 309.16.1 The board denied Mobley’s request", "paragraph_id": "para_57", "court_paragraph": 3 }, { "text": "because it was duplicative of a request of Mobley’s that had already been fulfilled", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "by the prosecutor’s office. Mobley then brought an original action in the Tenth", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "District, asking that court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the board to", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "provide a paper copy of the requested record and to award him statutory damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "The Tenth District referred the matter to a magistrate for a decision. See Civ.R.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "53(D)(1); Tenth Dist.Loc.R. 13(M). While the matter was pending, the board sent", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "Mobley a paper copy of the requested record.", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "{¶ 3} The board then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mobley’s", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "mandamus claim was moot because he had received the requested record and that", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "statutory damages were not appropriate, because it had initially denied Mobley’s", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "request based on a good-faith belief that it was not required to send Mobley a", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "document he had already received. The magistrate issued a decision recommending", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "that the court of appeals grant the board’s motion to dismiss, concluding that", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Mobley’s claim was moot. 2025-Ohio-1422, ¶ 33, 41 (10th Dist.). The magistrate", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "also recommended that the court of appeals deny Mobley’s request for statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "damages because even if the board had violated an obligation to produce the", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "requested record, the denial of the request was made in reasonable reliance on case", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "law. See id. at ¶ 34-39.", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "{¶ 4} Mobley filed three objections to the magistrate’s decision pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b):", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "1. Former R.C. 309.16(A) required each county’s prosecuting attorney to annually “make a certified", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "statement to the board of county commissioners specifying” certain information about cases", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "prosecuted in that county during the previous year. Am.Sub.S.B. No. 198, 138 Ohio Laws, Part I,", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "683, 683-684. The General Assembly repealed R.C. 309.16, effective April 4, 2023, see 2022", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Am.Sub.S.B. No. 16.", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "[I.] Magistrate failed as a matter of law when it failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_85", "court_paragraph": 4 }, { "text": "presume injury, where [the board] did fail to provide any legal", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "authority to support its denial, pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(3).", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "[II.] Magistrate opines that the two County Offices in the", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "instant case are in sufficient privity with one another as to eliminate", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "the need for both to respond to multiple requests for the same public", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "documents from the same requester. Relying on State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "Cushion v. City of Massillon, 2011-Ohio-4749 [(5th Dist.)].", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "[III.] Magistrate opines that [the board] reasonably relied on", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "State ex rel. Cushion, to deny [Mobley] public records as a duplicate", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "request. Therefore, [the board] complied with R.C. 149.43(B)(3)", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "and [Mobley] isn’t entitled to full statutory damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "The court of appeals initially dismissed the case on the ground that after he initiated", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "his lawsuit, Mobley was named a vexatious litigator in a different case, but we", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "reversed on appeal and remanded for the court of appeals to consider the merits of", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "Mobley’s appeal. State ex rel. Mobley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2023-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "3993, ¶ 17.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "{¶ 5} On remand, Mobley filed a second set of objections, stating:", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "[I.] The Magistrate failed to consider that the Franklin", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "County Prosecutor and the Franklin County Board of", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "Commissioners are separate entities established by the laws of this", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "state for the exercise of a function of government, specifically", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Chapters 309 and 305 of the revised code. Therefore, both offices", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "meet the statutory definition of “public office,” pursuant to R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "149.011(A). State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ. Co. v. Bodiker, 134", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "Ohio App.3d 415, 423 [(10th Dist.)]. (Moreover, the General", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "Assembly has apparently rejected such policy-based preferences", "paragraph_id": "para_113", "court_paragraph": 5 }, { "text": "among public records custodians, in that R.C. 149.011(A) classifies", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "as a public office “any” entity which otherwise satisfies the statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "definition.)", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "[II.] The Magistrate failed to consider that the Franklin", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "County Board of Commissioners may sue and be sued pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "R.C. 305.12.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "[III.] The Magistrate failed to consider that the record", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "requested by [Mobley] is by law received by the Franklin County", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "Board of Commissioners pursuant to R.C. 309.16, and both meets", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "the definition of record pursuant to R.C. 149.011(G) and is the", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "property of the Franklin County Board of Commissioners once", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "received, pursuant to R.C. 149.351(A).", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "[IV.] The Magistrate failed to consider that the Franklin", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "County Board of Commissioners and the Franklin County", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Prosecutor both have their own records retention schedules created", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "by the county records commission pursuant to R.C. 149.38.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "[V.] The magistrate mistakenly invokes privity among the", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office and the Franklin County Board", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "of Commissioner’s where neither the law or public policy allows", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "privity. See [R.C.] 149.43(A)(1) “Public record means records kept", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "by any public office.”", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "(Boldface and underlining in original.) The Tenth District overruled both sets of", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Mobley’s objections, adopted all but one paragraph and one sentence of the", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "magistrate’s decision, and granted the board’s motion to dismiss. 2025-Ohio-1422", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "at ¶ 17 (10th Dist.). Mobley appealed to this court.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_141", "court_paragraph": 6 }, { "text": "{¶ 6} Mobley has not challenged on appeal the Tenth District’s", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "determination that his mandamus claim was rendered moot when he received the", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "requested record from the board, so we consider only his argument about statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "damages. A public-records requester is entitled to statutory damages under the", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "Public Records Act if “(1) he transmitted a written public-records request by hand", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail, (2) he made the request to the", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "public office or person responsible for the requested records, (3) he fairly described", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "the records sought, and (4) the public office failed to comply with an obligation", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "under R.C. 149.43(B).” State ex rel. Grim v. New Holland, 2024-Ohio-4822, ¶ 6,", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "citing R.C. 149.43(C)(2).2", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "{¶ 7} Even when a party demonstrates an entitlement to statutory damages,", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "a court may reduce or decline to award statutory damages if it determines that", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "“based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law” at the time of the", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "conduct of the public office, “a well-informed public office . . . reasonably would", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "believe that the conduct . . . of the public office . . . did not constitute a failure to", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "comply with an obligation in accordance with [R.C. 149.43(B)],” and that “a well-", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "informed public office . . . reasonably would believe that the conduct . . . of the", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "public office . . . would serve the public policy that underlies the authority that is", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "asserted as permitting that conduct.” R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b).", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "{¶ 8} So, the Public Records Act envisions a two-step process for", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "determining whether a requester is entitled to statutory damages: a court first", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "determines whether the requester has established the four elements of", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2), and if those elements have been established, the court", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "2. Effective April 9, 2025, R.C. 149.43 was amended such that a person committed to the custody", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), such as Mobley, is no longer", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "eligible to receive an award of statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C), and some provisions have", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "been renumbered. See 2024 Sub.H.B. No. 265. We apply the version of the statute enacted in 2022", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "Sub.H.B. No. 93 (effective Apr. 29, 2022).", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "determines whether it will nonetheless reduce or decline to award damages based", "paragraph_id": "para_172", "court_paragraph": 7 }, { "text": "on application of R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b). See State ex rel. Ware v. Akron,", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "2021-Ohio-624, ¶ 18, 21. This detailed analysis does not normally lend itself to", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "resolution on a motion to dismiss, which solely “‘tests the sufficiency of the", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "complaint’” and asks whether the requester “cannot prove a set of facts entitling", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "him to recovery.” Jones v. Galloway, 2026-Ohio-1250, ¶ 8, quoting State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 1992-Ohio-73, ¶ 9-10.", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "{¶ 9} Rather than follow this two-step process, the magistrate below", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "compressed the question whether Mobley was entitled to statutory damages in the", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "first instance with whether those damages should be reduced or not awarded at all.", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "See 2025-Ohio-1422 at ¶ 34-39 (10th Dist.). Mobley, however, did not object on", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "this basis; rather, he objected only to the magistrate’s recommendation that the", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "board’s refusal to provide the requested records was based on reasonable reliance", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "on case law. See id. at ¶ 9 (“All of Mobley’s objections relate to the magistrate’s", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "conclusion that he was not entitled to statutory damages because the Board’s initial", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "refusal to provide the requested records was based on reasonable reliance on case", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "law.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "{¶ 10} A party, except for a claim of plain error, waives an argument by", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "failing to raise it in his objections to a magistrate’s recommendation. See", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). Civ.R. 53 applies to a court of appeals when an original", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "action commences there. See State ex rel. Franks v. Adult Parole Auth., 2020-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "711, ¶ 10, citing State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey, 2008-Ohio-1444, ¶ 11; see also Tenth", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "Dist.Loc.R. 13(M)(1) (“the proceedings and decision of the magistrate and", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "objections thereto shall be governed by Civ.R. 53”). The Tenth District was thus", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "limited to considering only the arguments Mobley raised in his objections to the", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "magistrate’s recommendation, as are we. See Franks at ¶ 10 (“when a party to an", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "original action in the Tenth District fails to object to a magistrate’s recommendation", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "and the court of appeals adopts it, that party waives his right to raise an argument", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "pertaining to that recommendation on appeal to this court”), citing State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_202", "court_paragraph": 8 }, { "text": "Muhammad v. State, 2012-Ohio-4767, ¶ 3. Accordingly, the only question for", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "review in this court is whether the Tenth District correctly determined that the board", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "as a “well-informed public office . . . reasonably would believe that [its]", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "conduct . . . did not constitute a failure to comply” with its obligation under", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(B). R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a).3 We review the Tenth District’s decision", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "for an abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. Atakpu v. Shuler, 2023-Ohio-2266, ¶ 14", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "(“a court’s subsequent decision under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b) to reduce or", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "ultimately not award statutory damages is reviewed for an abuse of discretion”),", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "citing State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, 2021-Ohio-4487,", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "¶ 11.4", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "{¶ 11} The board asserts that it reasonably believed its denial of Mobley’s", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "request was not a failure to comply with its obligation under the Public Records", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "Act, because legal authority provides that a public office has no obligation to", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "respond to a duplicative public-records request. In determining whether that belief", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "would have been reasonable, the Tenth District relied on State ex rel. Cushion v.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "Massillon, 2011-Ohio-4749 (5th Dist.), to support the view that a public office need", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "not respond to a duplicative request that was already made to a different public", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "office. See 2025-Ohio-1422 at ¶ 12-17, 34-36, 38-39 (10th Dist.). In Cushion, a", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "3. The concurring-and-dissenting opinion would find that Mobley raised the public-policy issue", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "simply because the words “public policy” appear in his fifth objection. See concurring-and-", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "dissenting opinion, ¶ 51. But a quick review of the full text of that objection, set forth above,", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "demonstrates the fallacy of that opinion’s claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "4. The concurring-and-dissenting opinion argues that we should review the Tenth District’s decision", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "de novo. See concurring-and-dissenting opinion at ¶ 28 (collecting cases). But that opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "overlooks that “when the appeals court renders a decision on a discretionary issue, we defer to that", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "court’s discretion as the originating court.” (Emphasis in original.) State ex rel. DiFranco v. S.", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "Euclid, 2014-Ohio-538, ¶ 14, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati, 2019-Ohio-3876, ¶ 12; see also State ex rel. Cranford v.", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "Cleveland, 2004-Ohio-4884, ¶ 24 (reviewing discretionary award of attorney fees for abuse of", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "discretion in public-records case), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in DiFranco at", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "¶ 16-17.", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "requester made identical public-records requests to the law director, auditor, and", "paragraph_id": "para_236", "court_paragraph": 9 }, { "text": "mayor of the City of Massillon, arguing that each had an independent duty to", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "respond to his request. See Cushion at ¶ 2, 13, 81. The court of appeals rejected", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "this argument, agreeing with the trial court “that there was ‘no need for each office", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "of the City of Massillon that was sent the public records request to send the exact", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "same documents.’” Id. at ¶ 85; see also State ex rel. Brown v. N. Lewisburg, 2013-", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "Ohio-3841, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.) (“we find it would not be unreasonable for . . . the", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "custodians of the records requested . . . to have believed that [the requester] was not", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "entitled to duplicative, voluminous copies of records to which the testimony in this", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "matter demonstrates she has access [to]”).", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "{¶ 12} The Tenth District also noted that our decision in State ex rel. Adkins", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Legal Dept. held that “public offices are not required to", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "respond to duplicative public-records requests,” 2024-Ohio-5154, ¶ 15, citing State", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "ex rel. Laborers Internatl. Union of N. Am., Local Union No. 500 v. Summerville,", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "2009-Ohio-4090, ¶ 6. See 2025-Ohio-1422 at ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). While Adkins was", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "decided after the board denied Mobley’s request, the Tenth District correctly noted", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "that Adkins relied on Summerville, a 2009 decision that supported our holding in", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "Adkins. See Summerville at ¶ 6 (public official does not need to respond to a", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "reiteration of an earlier request for the same record); accord State ex rel. Caster v.", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "Columbus, 2016-Ohio-8394, ¶ 49 (“This court has held that a reiterated request for", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "the same records does not require an additional response.”), citing Summerville at", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "¶ 6. And while Mobley argues that this principle is limited to when the duplicative", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "requests “were made to the same public office,” the Tenth District found that the", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "board reasonably would have believed that Cushion and Brown supported the view", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "that a public office need not respond to a duplicative request that was already made", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "to a different public office in the same county. See 2025-Ohio-1422 at ¶ 12-17, 34-", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "39 (10th Dist.). We find no abuse of discretion in the Tenth District’s reliance on", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "this case law in determining that the board reasonably would have believed that it", "paragraph_id": "para_265", "court_paragraph": 10 }, { "text": "did not need to respond to Mobley’s duplicative request.", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "{¶ 13} Mobley’s remaining arguments that the board would not reasonably", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "believe that its denial of Mobley’s request was not a failure to comply with its", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "obligation under R.C. 149.43(B) are unavailing. He cites decisions from the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "of Claims for the unremarkable proposition that multiple public offices may be", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "responsible for the same record. See, e.g., Fairley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor,", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "2020-Ohio-1425, ¶ 13 (Ct. Cl.) (colleting cases). But none of the cases Mobley", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "cites involved multiple requests to different public offices. He also argues that our", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "decisions in State ex rel. Summers v. Fox, 2020-Ohio-5585, and State ex rel. Horton", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "v. Kilbane, 2022-Ohio-205, make clear that the board still had an obligation to", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "produce the requested record despite Mobley having already received the record", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "from a third party. But the third party from whom the requester received the record", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "in those cases was not a separate public office, but rather a private person or entity.", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "See Summers at ¶ 7, 12, 38 (public office not relieved of duty to provide requested", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "records despite requester having received record from individual who had", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "separately requested the record); Horton at ¶ 21 (public office not relieved of duty", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "to provide requested record to requester even though law firm representing", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "requester had received the record in response to a request sent on behalf of a", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "different client). These cases are therefore inapposite as they did not involve", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "duplicative requests from the same requester to multiple public offices.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "{¶ 14} The concurring-and-dissenting opinion goes to great lengths to", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "dissect each case cited herein (and in the Tenth District’s decision) in an attempt to", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "show that the board should have reasonably believed it had a duty to respond to", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "Mobley’s duplicative public-records request made to another Franklin County", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "public office. See concurring-and-dissenting opinion, ¶ 37-47. But that opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "overlooks that our task in this direct appeal is to determine whether the Tenth", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "District’s decision constitutes an abuse of discretion. And, despite the opinion’s", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "attempt to draw nuanced distinctions, the cases relied on by the Tenth District do", "paragraph_id": "para_295", "court_paragraph": 11 }, { "text": "provide support for the proposition that a public county office has no duty to", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "respond to a duplicative public-records request that has already been fulfilled by", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "another county office. It may be that the concurring-and-dissenting justice would", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "reach a different conclusion if the issue were squarely presented to us. But that", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "does not mean that the Tenth District abused its discretion in its determination.", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "{¶ 15} Thus, the Tenth District did not abuse its discretion in finding that", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "based on existing case law, the board reasonably would have believed its denial of", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "Mobley’s request was not a failure to comply with its obligation under the Public", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "Records Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "{¶ 16} We affirm the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "Mobley’s claim for a writ of mandamus as moot and dismissing Mobley’s claim for", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "an award of statutory damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "Judgment affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "KENNEDY, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "{¶ 17} “The separation-of-powers doctrine implicitly arises from our", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "tripartite democratic form of government and recognizes that the executive,", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "legislative, and judicial branches of our government have their own unique powers", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "and duties that are separate and apart from the others.” State v. Thompson, 2001-", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "Ohio-1288, ¶ 6. “‘In the preservation of these distinctions is seen, by many able", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "jurists, the preservation of all the rights, civil and political, of the individual,", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "secured by our free form of government . . . .’” State ex rel. Bray v. Russell, 2000-", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "Ohio-116, ¶ 13, quoting Zanesville v. Zanesville Tel. & Tel. Co., 63 Ohio St. 442,", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "451 (1900). That is, “[t]he reason the legislative, executive, and judicial powers", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "are separate and balanced is to protect the people, not to protect the various", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "branches of government.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "{¶ 18} One of the judiciary’s most vital roles is to safeguard the rights of", "paragraph_id": "para_325", "court_paragraph": 12 }, { "text": "the people by limiting government overreach. Every Ohio judge takes an oath to", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "support the state and federal Constitutions, see Ohio Const., art. XV, § 7, and that", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "obliges the members of the judiciary to respect the limits on the judicial power", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution and to insist that the other", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "branches of government respect the limits on their own powers. By upholding these", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "obligations, judges make sure that the people’s rights go untrammeled by any of the", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "three branches.", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "{¶ 19} These principles do not vanish when the public’s right to access", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "government records under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, is at issue. Article", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "II, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution confers all legislative power of the State on", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "the General Assembly, and the General Assembly may “enact any law that does not", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "conflict with the Ohio or United States Constitution,” Kaminski v. Metal & Wire", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "Prods. Co., 2010-Ohio-1027, ¶ 60. So when the General Assembly creates a right", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "for the people that does not conflict with the state or federal Constitution—as it has", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "done with the right to access public records—it is our duty to protect this right,", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "regardless of whether we agree with the underlying policy supporting it.", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "{¶ 20} But in yet another one of a thousand cuts eviscerating the Public", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "Records Act, the majority once again undermines the act by denying an award of", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "statutory damages when a public office failed to comply with an obligation under", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "the act. This particular case presents the question whether a public office could", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "reasonably believe that it had no duty to respond to a public-records request because", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "the requester had already received a copy of the requested record from a different", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "public office. Based on the state of the law at the time appellee, the Franklin County", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "Board of Commissioners, denied the request, the answer is no. I would affirm the", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals to the extent it dismissed appellant", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "Alphonso Mobley Jr.’s claim for a writ of mandamus as moot and reverse the court", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "of appeals’ judgment denying an award of statutory damages. I would award", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "Mobley $1,000 in statutory damages, and therefore, I concur in part and dissent in", "paragraph_id": "para_355", "court_paragraph": 13 }, { "text": "part.", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "Background", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "{¶ 21} Initially, it is important to note that “[i]n reviewing a motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we accept as", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "true all factual allegations in the complaint.” Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C.,", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "2020-Ohio-4193, ¶ 22. In his complaint, Mobley alleged that he had requested", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "from the board the “Prosecutor Statement, pursuant to [former] R.C. 309.16 for", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "year 2020.” The board denied the public-records request, saying that the request", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "duplicated a prior request for the same record that the Franklin County Prosecutor’s", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "Office had already fulfilled. Mobley asserted that the board is a public office that", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "is separate and distinct from the prosecutor’s office and therefore had a duty to", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "fulfill the request.", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "{¶ 22} After Mobley brought a mandamus action, the board fulfilled his", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "public-records request for the prosecutor’s statement. It then moved to dismiss the", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "action, attaching a letter to show that it had fulfilled the records request and that the", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "request for a writ was moot. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 2002-Ohio-7041, ¶ 8 (a court may consider", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "evidence outside the record to determine whether a cause is moot). Mobley later", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "moved for a default judgment and admitted in that motion that he had received the", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "requested record from the board.", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "{¶ 23} In its motion to dismiss, the board made two arguments: either it was", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "not required to respond to a duplicate request or it reasonably believed that it was", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "not required to respond to a duplicate request. A magistrate of the Tenth District", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "recommended dismissing the action as moot and denying an award of statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "damages, stating that “even if [the board] failed to comply with its obligation under", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and (3), [Mobley] is not entitled to statutory damages because", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "[the board’s] failure to initially provide [Mobley] with the requested records was", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "made upon a reasonable reliance of the case law in [State ex rel. Cushion v.", "paragraph_id": "para_385", "court_paragraph": 14 }, { "text": "Massillon, 2011-Ohio-4749 (5th Dist.)].” 2025-Ohio-1422, ¶ 37 (10th Dist.). In", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "Cushion, the Fifth District Court of Appeals suggested that there was no need for", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "the mayor of the City of Massillon to respond to a public-records request when the", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "city’s law director and auditor had already fulfilled the request. Cushion at ¶ 81,", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "85.", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "{¶ 24} Mobley objected to the magistrate’s decision, asserting that the", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "board could not reasonably rely on Cushion in denying his public-records request", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "when decisions from this court had established that a public office is still required", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "to provide a public record even if the requester has already received it from a third", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "party. He also maintained that nothing prevented him from requesting the same", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "public record from two separate public offices.", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "{¶ 25} The Tenth District overruled Mobley’s objections, holding that “the", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "magistrate properly concluded that Mobley was not entitled to statutory damages", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "because a well-informed public office could reasonably believe that denying", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "Mobley’s request did not violate the Public Records Act based on existing case", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "law.” 2025-Ohio-1422 at ¶ 16 (10th Dist.).", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "{¶ 26} Mobley appealed as of right.", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "Law and Analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "Standard of Review", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "{¶ 27} In an original public-records mandamus action, a court of appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "has discretion in deciding the ultimate question whether to reduce or deny an award", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "of statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).5 It does not, however, have", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "discretion to misapply the law. Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 38. R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "5. Effective April 9, 2025, R.C. 149.43 was amended, and some provisions have been renumbered.", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "See 2024 Sub.H.B. No. 265. This opinion applies the version of the statute enacted in 2022 Sub.H.B.", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "No. 93 (effective Apr. 29, 2022).", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "149.43(C)(2) states that a court “may reduce an award of statutory damages or not", "paragraph_id": "para_414", "court_paragraph": 15 }, { "text": "award statutory damages” if certain conditions are met. (Emphasis added.)", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "{¶ 28} Nonetheless, it is well established that “[w]e review a court of", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "appeals’ judgment in a mandamus action filed in that court as if the action had been", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "brought originally in this court.” State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Schools, 2020-Ohio-5149, ¶ 7; accord State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "Fair Hous. Opportunities of Northwest Ohio v. Ohio Fair Plan, 2023-Ohio-2667,", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "¶ 12. This court is therefore not required to defer to the court of appeals’ decision", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "to deny Mobley an award of statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "{¶ 29} In addition, the Tenth District in this case granted the board’s motion", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "to dismiss, and “[w]e review de novo a decision granting a motion to dismiss for", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” State ex rel. Wright v.", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "Madison Cty. Clerk of Courts, 2026-Ohio-598, ¶ 7; see also Furr v. Ruehlman,", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "2023-Ohio-481, ¶ 8 (“We review de novo an order dismissing a mandamus", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "complaint.”). De novo review necessarily includes the court of appeals’ decision", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "to dismiss Mobley’s request for an award of statutory damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "{¶ 30} Both prongs under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b) must be satisfied", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "before a court of appeals has discretion to reduce or deny an award of statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "damages. Answering the threshold question of what a well-informed public-", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "records custodian would reasonably believe calls for an objective assessment of law", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "and public policy, and that presents a question of law. As the United States Court", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "of Appeals for the Second Circuit has noted, “[w]hat the law’s legal construct of a", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "reasonable person would believe or do under the particular circumstances of a case", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "is normally a question of law, the decision of which is reviewed de novo.” Huang", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2012).", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "{¶ 31} Consequently, contrary to the majority, I would apply a de novo", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "standard of review in this direct appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "The Public Records Act", "paragraph_id": "para_443", "court_paragraph": 16 }, { "text": "{¶ 32} Subject to an exception not relevant here, “upon request by any", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "person, a public office or person responsible for public records shall make copies", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "of the requested public record available to the requester at cost and within a", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "{¶ 33} Statutory damages are available if “a court determines that the public", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "office or the person responsible for public records failed to comply with an", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "obligation in accordance with [R.C. 149.43(B)]” and (1) the request was transmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail, (2) the request fairly", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "described the public record being requested, and (3) the request was sent to the", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "public office or person responsible for the public record. R.C. 149.43(C)(2). An", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "award of statutory damages under the Public Records Act is compulsory: “the", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "requester shall be entitled to recover . . . statutory damages” (emphasis added), id.", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "{¶ 34} The Public Records Act provides only one circumstance in which", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "“[t]he court may reduce an award of statutory damages or not award statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "damages.” (Emphasis added.) Id. To reduce or not award statutory damages, the", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "court must decide that “a well-informed” public-records custodian would", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "reasonably believe that the conduct of the public office or person responsible for", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "the public records (1) “did not constitute a failure to comply with an obligation in", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "accordance with [R.C. 149.43(B)],” R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a), and (2) “would serve the", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "public policy that underlies the authority that is asserted as permitting that conduct,”", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b). Both prongs must be met. See R.C. 149.43(C)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "{¶ 35} In my view, the board violated an obligation imposed under R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "149.43(B) by not producing a copy of the prosecutor’s statement in a reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "time, and an award of statutory damages is required. I will not belabor the point,", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "since the majority does not dispute it. The Tenth District and the majority’s analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "in fact presupposes that the board violated the Public Records Act by failing to", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "provide the prosecutor’s statement in a reasonable time and that an award of", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "statutory damages is required, since they skip ahead to the question whether to", "paragraph_id": "para_473", "court_paragraph": 17 }, { "text": "reduce or not award statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b). See", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "majority opinion, ¶ 10; 2025-Ohio 1422 at ¶ 10-11 (10th Dist.).", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "{¶ 36} Initially, nothing in the text of the Public Records Act expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "excuses a public-records custodian from fulfilling a public-records request that has", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "been fulfilled by another public office. The statute contains an extensive and", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "comprehensive list of exceptions precluding the release of records, see R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "149.43(A)(1)(a) through (oo), and it “mandates access to public records upon", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "request unless the requested records are specifically excepted from disclosure,”", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "2000-Ohio-282, ¶ 12. There is no exception for duplicate requests made to separate", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "public offices, and “[a] judicially created ‘good sense’ rule does not except a public", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "record from disclosure under R.C. 149.43,” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v.", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "Jones-Kelley, 2008-Ohio-1770, paragraph three of the syllabus. So, from the start,", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "a well-informed public-records custodian would have no basis to believe that the", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "board was not required to provide the prosecutor’s statement to Mobley.", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "Cushion and Brown", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "{¶ 37} Next, remember that in Cushion, the public-records requester sent", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "the same public-records request to the City of Massillon’s mayor, law director, and", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "auditor. Cushion, 2011-Ohio-4749, at ¶ 2-13 (5th Dist.). However, the Fifth", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "District noted that the city law director had written a letter to the requester saying", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "that he had responded to the request on behalf of himself, the auditor, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "mayor; the court then said that each city office did not need to respond to the", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "request. Id. at ¶ 85. The court’s analysis for rejecting the requester’s argument that", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "he was entitled to have the same record provided by each office was that “he cite[d]", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "no cases for such proposition” and that the court was not “aware of any such case", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "law or other legal authority.” Id. at ¶ 86. That is, the Fifth District was largely", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "agnostic about whether the Public Record Act bars a requester from seeking the", "paragraph_id": "para_502", "court_paragraph": 18 }, { "text": "same record from different public offices.", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "{¶ 38} That is a pretty slender reed to grasp. But more importantly, when", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "the board denied Mobley’s public-records request, a well-informed public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "custodian would have known that the Cushion decision runs counter to clearly", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "established precedent. For example, in State ex rel. Summers v. Fox, we stated", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "plainly: “Nothing in the text of the Public Records Act excuses a public office from", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "its duty to supply records upon a showing that the requester has obtained the record", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "from a third party.” 2020-Ohio-5585, ¶ 39. A separate public office is a third party.", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "{¶ 39} The Tenth District and the majority cite the Second District Court of", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "Appeals’ decision in State ex rel. Brown v. N. Lewisburg, 2013-Ohio-3841 (2d", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "Dist.), in support of the view that the board acted reasonably. However, that", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "decision does not support a reasonable belief that a public-records request made to", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "one public office precludes a request for the same record from a second public", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "office from being fulfilled, because Brown involved a single request, not multiple", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "requests to separate public offices.", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "{¶ 40} In Brown, a member of a village council—Brown—requested copies", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "of the village’s invoices, purchase orders, and certain checks for a certain period.", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "Id. at ¶ 2. The village mayor refused to provide the requested records because", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "Brown had received some of the information in those records in registers provided", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "in monthly packets prepared for council members and because the invoices were", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "available to review at council meetings. Id. at ¶ 3. In addition, Brown had been", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "permitted to view a detailed payment register that contained information in the", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "records sought in her public-records request. Id. at ¶ 4. Brown did not receive the", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "records requested until after she filed her mandamus action. Id. at ¶ 5, 7. The", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "Second District denied the writ as moot, id. at ¶ 11, and denied an award of statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "damages on the basis that “it [was] not . . . unreasonable for . . . the custodians of", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "the records requested . . . to have believed that Brown was not entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "duplicative, voluminous copies of records to which . . . she [had] access at each", "paragraph_id": "para_532", "court_paragraph": 19 }, { "text": "Village council meeting,” id. at ¶ 19.", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "{¶ 41} A well-informed public-records custodian could not have reasonably", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "relied on Brown for the proposition that a public-records request made to one public", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "office precludes a request for the same record from a separate public office from", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "being fulfilled. Again, Brown involved only a single request to a single public", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "office that was not fulfilled before the mandamus action was filed.", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "{¶ 42} What the Second District said was that it was reasonable for the", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "village and its officials to believe that “Brown was not entitled to duplicative,", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "voluminous copies of records to which . . . she [had] access at each Village council", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "meeting.” Id., 2013-Ohio-3841, at ¶ 19 (2d Dist.). But at the time Brown was", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "decided, this court had already rejected the proposition that allowing a public-", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "records requester to see or hear a requested record absolved the public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "custodian of the duty to make a copy of the record upon request. See State ex rel.", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "Dispatch Printing Co. v. Morrow Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2005-Ohio-685, ¶ 12,", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "¶ 14-15 (newspaper requested copy of a 9-1-1 audio tape but public office", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "responded by allowing a newspaper employee to listen to it and by offering to", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "transcribe it; the public office’s response violated the Public Records Act). A well-", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "informed public-records custodian would have known this court’s public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "precedent (especially if it is assumed that the custodian knew about two obscure", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "court-of-appeals public-records decisions like Cushion and Brown).", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "Adkins, Summerville, and Caster", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "{¶ 43} The Tenth District and the majority also point to State ex rel. Adkins", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Legal Dept., 2024-Ohio-5154, and State ex rel. Laborers", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "Internatl. Union of N. Am., Local Union No. 500 v. Summerville, 2009-Ohio-4090.", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "See 2025-Ohio-1422 at ¶ 13 (10th Dist.); majority opinion at ¶ 12. The majority", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "adds State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus, 2016-Ohio-8394, to the analysis. Majority", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "opinion at ¶ 12.", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "{¶ 44} As for Adkins, the majority rightly acknowledges that that decision", "paragraph_id": "para_562", "court_paragraph": 20 }, { "text": "postdates the board’s denial of Mobley’s public-records request, so Adkins cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "support a reasonable belief that the board did not have a duty to fulfill Mobley’s", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "request. Moreover, Adkins says, “Generally, public offices are not required to", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "respond to duplicative public-records requests.” (Emphasis added.) Adkins at ¶ 15.", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "That rule is therefore not as absolute as the majority would make it out to be.", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "Further, Adkins is of limited value here because it holds that the requests at issue in", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "that case—which were made to a warden’s assistant and the chief inspector’s office", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "at a correctional institution—were not duplicative based on their wording. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "at ¶ 16. Adkins therefore tells us nothing about whether a request fulfilled by one", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "public office excuses a separate public office from its obligation to provide the same", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "record upon request—the court could have simply meant that there is no need to", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "respond to duplicate requests made to the same public office.", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "{¶ 45} In contrast, Summerville involved a “follow-up letter” that the", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "public-records requester sent after its public-records request had been denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "Summerville at ¶ 5-6. This court determined that the follow-up letter was not a", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "separate public-records request, and the court indicated that it would be absurd to", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "allow public-records requesters to “inundate public officials with myriad identical", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "records requests.” Id. at ¶ 6. That statement sounds more like a policy decision—", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "a judicially created good-sense rule—than a wholehearted stab at statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "interpretation, but for what it’s worth, the follow-up letter was sent to the same", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "public office, not a separate one.", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "{¶ 46} Lastly, the duplicative public-records requests at issue in Caster", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "were not sent to separate public offices; all the requests were sent to the Columbus", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "Division of Police. Caster, 2016-Ohio-8394, at ¶ 3, 6-9, 49.", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "{¶ 47} So where does that leave us? We have a statute that provides no", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "exception for duplicative public-records requests made to separate public offices,", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "notwithstanding a myriad of other exceptions. We have several cases that do not", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "21", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "support the board’s assertion that it reasonably believed that it had no duty to fulfill", "paragraph_id": "para_592", "court_paragraph": 21 }, { "text": "Mobley’s public-records request: Cushion conflicts with case law from this court,", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "Brown is irrelevant, Adkins is inconclusive, Summerville involved a follow-up", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "letter, and Caster concerned multiple requests sent to the same public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "custodian. And we have unambiguous case law from this court stating: “Nothing", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "in the text of the Public Records Act excuses a public office from its duty to supply", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "records upon a showing that the requester has obtained the record from a third", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "party.” Summers, 2020-Ohio-5585, at ¶ 39.", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "{¶ 48} Based on an ordinary application of case law, a reasonable, well-", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "informed public-records custodian would have fulfilled Mobley’s public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "request. Because the board fails to establish that it reasonably believed that denying", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "the request “did not constitute a failure to comply with an obligation in accordance", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "with [R.C. 149.43(B)],” R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a), this court cannot reduce or not award", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2). I therefore would award Mobley", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "$1,000 in statutory damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "{¶ 49} The majority finds otherwise, but it then fails to complete its", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "analysis. To reduce or not award statutory damages, the court must find that both", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b) apply—i.e., that “a well-informed” public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "custodian would reasonably believe that the conduct of the public office or person", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "responsible for the requested public records (1) “did not constitute a failure to", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "comply with an obligation in accordance with [R.C. 149.43(B)],” “based on the", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "ordinary application of statutory law and case law,” R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a), and (2)", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "“would serve the public policy that underlies the authority that is asserted as", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "permitting that conduct,” R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b).", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "{¶ 50} The majority skips a step and never addresses the public-policy", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "prong of the statute. It attempts to justify this shortcoming by suggesting that", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "Mobley failed to object to the magistrate’s decision related to the second prong", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b). See majority opinion at ¶ 9 (“[Mobley] objected only", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "22", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "to the magistrate’s recommendation that the board’s refusal to provide the requested", "paragraph_id": "para_622", "court_paragraph": 22 }, { "text": "records was based on reasonable reliance on case law”); id. at ¶ 10 (reviewing only", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "the first prong under R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a)).", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "{¶ 51} The magistrate’s analysis of the second prong, however, is limited to", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "a conclusory statement that denying a duplicative record request “would serve the", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "public policy that underlies the authority that is asserted as permitting that conduct,”", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "2025-Ohio-1422 at ¶ 37 (10th Dist.). The magistrate further explained that the", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "prosecutor’s office and the board were in sufficient privity with each other to", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "eliminate the need for both public offices to respond to a duplicative public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "request. Id. at ¶ 38. In response, Mobley presented this objection: “The magistrate", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "mistakenly invokes privity among the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office and the", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "Franklin County Board of Commissioner’s where neither the law or public policy", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "allows privity.”", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "{¶ 52} Mobley sufficiently raised the question of public policy in this", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "objection. But notably, the board did not respond to Mobley’s objections to the", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "magistrate’s decision, and the Tenth District never addressed whether his objections", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "were sufficient—in fact, it simply refused to adopt the magistrate’s conclusory", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "analysis of the public-policy prong, id. at ¶ 17. And in this court, the board has not", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "asserted that Mobley’s objections were insufficient but instead argues the merits of", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "the public-policy prong. In these circumstances, Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) does not", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "stand in the way of this court’s completing its analysis of the well-informed-", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "custodian test.", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "{¶ 53} To close the loop, I will address R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b). The board", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "points to the policy stated in Summerville, i.e., that not requiring a public office to", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "respond each time a public-records requester sends a follow-up letter requesting the", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "same records the requester previously requested avoids the “absurd result” of", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "encouraging “persons with questionable motives” to “inundate public officials with", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "myriad identical records requests,” Summerville, 2009-Ohio-4090, at ¶ 6. It is", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "January Term, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "23", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "plausible that allowing the denial of “myriad” duplicative public-records requests", "paragraph_id": "para_652", "court_paragraph": 23 }, { "text": "to the same public office serves this policy. But the same is not true of single", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "requests to different public offices. A single public-records custodian is not", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "inundated with requests in this scenario—here, it probably took as much time for", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "the board’s representative to write the letter denying Mobley’s public-records", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "request as it would have taken to fulfill it.", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "{¶ 54} Nor does a person’s requesting the same record from separate public", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "offices necessarily mean that the person has nefarious motives—simply put, a", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "citizen might want to compare the record received from each office to make sure", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "that they are identical. In this case, Mobley could have requested a copy of the", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "prosecutor’s statement from the prosecutor and from the board to make sure that", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "the statements matched, proving that the statement that the prosecutor sent Mobley", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "was actually the statement that had been filed with the board. But in the end, the", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "reason Mobley sent two public-records requests does not matter, because a public-", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "records requester does not have to explain why he or she wants the records, see", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "R.C. 149.43(B)(4)—it is enough that a request was made that fairly identified the", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "records sought.", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "{¶ 55} And even if precluding separate public-records requests sent to", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "different public offices from being fulfilled advanced a public policy of", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "discouraging persons with questionable motives from inundating public officials", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "with multiple identical requests, the overarching policy of the Public Records Act", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "outweighs it. “It has long been the policy of this state, as reflected in the Public", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "Records Act and as acknowledged by this court, that open government serves the", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "public interest and our democratic system,” State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 2006-Ohio-", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "1825, ¶ 20, therefore “reinforc[ing] the understanding that open access to", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "government papers is an integral entitlement of the people, to be preserved with", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "vigilance and vigor,” Kish v. Akron, 2006-Ohio-1244, ¶ 17. Preserving our", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "SUPREME COURT OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "24", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "democratic values is more important than any hassle a public servant must endure", "paragraph_id": "para_681", "court_paragraph": 24 }, { "text": "in fulfilling a public-records request.", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "{¶ 56} For these reasons, I concur in part and dissent in part.", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "Alphonso Mobley Jr., pro se.", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "Shayla D. Favor, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas W.", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "Ellis and John A. Zervas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "__________________", "paragraph_id": "para_688" } ], "word_count": 7665, "cites": [ "677 F.3d 130" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "659685a1f3dc3f379f70f3eda32dd4e9e92c02e182f03836538226d91830d19b", "source_url": "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2026/2026-Ohio-2589.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-08T08:56:08.957+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "659685a1f3dc3f379f70f3eda32dd4e9e92c02e182f03836538226d91830d19b", "recomputed_sha256": "659685a1f3dc3f379f70f3eda32dd4e9e92c02e182f03836538226d91830d19b", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-10T15:22:39.927Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:d02b116a9e5cc83fa107fbe2c431b8aac6e3f2d799f446f838990a0ae7b6f4f5", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "expires": "2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-10+legal-2026-10-10+2026-10-10T15:15:07", "content_hash": "sha256:d02b116a9e5cc83fa107fbe2c431b8aac6e3f2d799f446f838990a0ae7b6f4f5", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-10T16:22:40.497Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohio-2025-0608-2026-07-10" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }