Case Title: State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatny

Citation: 2010-Ohio-5711

Docket Number: 20101240

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatny, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5711.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-5711 
THE STATE EX REL. DEHLER, APPELLANT, v. 
SPATNY, DEPUTY WARDEN, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatny,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5711.] 
Public records — R.C. 149.43 — Request by prisoner properly denied as 
overbroad. 
(No. 2010-1240 — Submitted October 13, 2010 — Decided December 1, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, 
No. 2009-T-0075, 2010-Ohio-3052. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment by the Court of Appeals for 
Trumbull County denying the writ sought by appellant, Lambert Dehler, for a writ 
of mandamus to compel appellees, the director of the Ohio Department of 
Rehabilitation and Correction and various officials and employees of the 
Trumbull Correctional Institution, to provide him with access to all the records of 
the prison quartermaster’s orders for and receipt of clothing and shoes for a period 
of over seven years. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, the court of appeals properly denied the 
writ. 
{¶ 3} First, as the court of appeals held, by requesting all of the records 
relating to the quartermaster’s orders for and receipt of clothing and shoes for a 
period of over seven years, Dehler’s request was overbroad because he sought 
what amounted to a “complete duplication” of the quartermaster’s records.  2010-
Ohio-3052, ¶ 23.  “In identifying the records at issue, the Public Records Act 
‘does not contemplate that any individual has the right to a complete duplication 
of voluminous files kept by government agencies.’ ”  State ex rel. Glasgow v. 
Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 17, quoting State 
ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 619, 624, 640 
N.E.2d 174.  Although the prison officials met with Dehler to attempt to help him 
narrow his request, the meeting was not successful, and Dehler filed his 
mandamus claim based on his original request. 
{¶ 4} Second, when a prison official met with Dehler to provide him 
with an opportunity to revise his request, the official informed him that the prison 
would be willing to give him copies of all the requested records once he prepaid 
the cost of the copies, but Dehler refused.  R.C. 149.43(B)(1), which provides that 
“upon request, a public office or person responsible for public records shall make 
copies of the requested public record available at cost and within a reasonable 
period of time,” authorizes a public office to require the prepayment of costs 
before providing copies of public records.  See Warren Newspapers, 70 Ohio 
St.3d at 624-625, 640 N.E.2d 174 (right to request copies of public records, as 
opposed to the right to inspect them, is conditioned on the payment of the actual 
cost of copying the records); see also State ex rel. Call v. Fragale, 104 Ohio St.3d 
276, 2004-Ohio-6589, 819 N.E.2d 294, ¶ 6 (“R.C. 149.43 does not require a 
public-records custodian to provide copies of records free of charge; instead, the 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
Public Records Act requires only that copies of public records be made available 
at cost”). 
{¶ 5} Finally, insofar as Dehler requested to inspect the records in 
addition to merely requesting copies of them, the prison officials submitted 
evidence that granting that request might have unreasonably interfered with the 
discharge of their duties.  See State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. 
Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 81, 526 N.E.2d 786 (recognizing that the rule 
that people can inspect public records at any time is subject to the limitation that 
the inspection not endanger the safety of the record or unreasonably interfere with 
the duties of the custodian).  These concerns are particularly compelling in the 
prison setting when an inmate wishes to inspect records.  See Briscoe v. Ohio 
Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-1109, 2003-Ohio-3533, ¶ 16 
(“With respect to penal institutions, prison administrators must be accorded 
deference in adopting * * * policies and practices to preserve internal order and to 
maintain institutional security”).  Ultimately, Dehler’s request to personally 
inspect the records was rendered moot when he was transferred from the prison 
during the pendency of the proceedings before the court below.  See State ex rel. 
Brown v. Lemmerman, 124 Ohio St.3d 296, 2010-Ohio-137, 921 N.E.2d 1049, ¶ 
12 (in mandamus cases, the court shall consider facts and conditions after the case 
is filed when it rules on the writ). 
{¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, because Dehler did not establish his 
entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., dissents. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
 
BROWN, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶ 7} I respectfully dissent from the judgment affirming the denial of the 
writ of mandamus to compel appellees to provide appellant, Lambert Dehler, with 
access to records of the prison quartermaster’s orders for and receipt of clothing 
and shoes for a specified period of time. 
{¶ 8} In his appeal, Dehler asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
denying the writ.  The court of appeals’ sole basis for denying the writ was that 
Dehler’s request for records was improper because it was overbroad. 
{¶ 9} “ ‘[I]t is the responsibility of the person who wishes to inspect 
and/or copy records to identify with reasonable clarity the records at issue.’ ”  
State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, 857 
N.E.2d 1208, ¶ 29, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober (Apr. 28, 1993), Cuyahoga 
App. No. 63737, 1993 WL 173743, *1, affirmed (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 117, 623 
N.E.2d 1202.  “In identifying the records at issue, the Public Records Act ‘does 
not contemplate that any individual has the right to a complete duplication of 
voluminous files kept by government agencies.’ ”  State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 
119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 17, quoting State ex rel. 
Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 619, 624, 640 N.E.2d 
174. 
{¶ 10} In assessing the propriety of Dehler’s request, it should be noted 
that he clarified it several times in an attempt to accommodate appellees’ 
objections before he instituted his mandamus case.  See R.C. 149.43(B)(2) (“If a 
requester makes an ambiguous or overly broad request or has difficulty in making 
a request for copies or inspection of public records under this section such that the 
public officer or the person responsible for the requested public record cannot 
reasonably identify what public records are being requested, the public office or 
the person responsible for the requested public record may deny the request but 
shall provide the requester with an opportunity to revise the request by informing 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
the requester of the manner in which records are maintained by the public office 
and accessed in the ordinary course of the public office’s or the person’s duties”).  
Dehler’s request, as clarified, was for access to records of the Trumbull 
Correctional Institution quartermaster’s ordering and receipt of state-issued 
clothing and shoes for the three years before the first request. 
{¶ 11} For the following reasons, Dehler’s records request was 
sufficiently specific and not overbroad. 
{¶ 12} First, Dehler’s request was expressly directed toward certain 
records held by a specific prison official – the Trumbull Correctional Institution 
quartermaster – covering limited subjects – the ordering and receipt of state-
issued clothing and shoes – for a definite period of time – the three years prior to 
the request.  Prison officials and employees could reasonably identify exactly 
what records were being requested by Dehler.  There was no ambiguity.  See, e.g., 
Morgan, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, 857 N.E.2d 1208, ¶ 38. 
{¶ 13} Second, Dehler did not ask for a “complete duplication” of the 
quartermaster’s files.  There is no credible evidence that the prison 
quartermaster’s records of clothing and shoe orders constituted all or nearly all of 
his records or that they were voluminous.  Indeed, neither appellees in this case 
nor the majority cites any evidence to the contrary.  This case is thus 
distinguishable from Glasgow, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 
686, ¶ 19, in which we held that a public-records request was overbroad when it 
sought all of a state representative’s work-related messages and correspondence 
during her entire tenure in office, and from State ex rel. Zauderer v. Joseph 
(1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 752, 756, 577 N.E.2d 444, in which a court of appeals 
held that a request that a police chief, county sheriff, and highway patrol 
superintendent provide access to “all traffic reports” was unreasonable in scope. 
{¶ 14} Third, the mere fact that a request may encompass a large number 
of records  or may require a lengthy period for the public-records custodian to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
search and review the records before permitting the requester to access them does 
not render the request defective.  See Warren Newspapers, 70 Ohio St.3d at 624, 
640 N.E.2d 174 (request to police chief for, inter alia, records of all internal 
investigations from 1988 to 1993 and all incident reports or traffic tickets written 
in 1992 not overbroad); State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600, 
2009-Ohio-1901, 906 N.E.2d 1105, ¶ 17 (broad scope of records request, which 
covered over 8,700 e-mails and over 74,000 pages of data, justified governor’s 
office’s decision to review the records to determine whether to redact exempt 
matter before producing them). 
{¶ 15} Fourth, this construction is consistent not only with our precedent 
but also with our duties to “construe the Public Records Act liberally in favor of 
broad access and resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure of public records.”  
State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224, 2010-
Ohio-3288, 932 N.E.2d 327, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 16} Finally, the unmistakable, albeit unstated, motivation for the 
majority’s and the court of appeals’ holdings in this case is that given Dehler’s 
status as an inmate, finding in his favor here and in the related case of State ex rel. 
Dehler v. Kelly, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2010-Ohio-5724, __ N.E.2d __, would open 
the floodgates to a myriad of similar public-records requests and mandamus 
actions by inmates.  But however noble the court’s objective in attempting to stem 
the potential tide of this unwanted litigation, we have consistently held that 
public-records custodians and courts “ ‘cannot withhold public records simply 
because they disagree with the policies behind the law permitting the release of 
these records.’ ”  State ex rel. WBNS TV, Inc. v. Dues, 101 Ohio St.3d 406, 2004-
Ohio-1497, 805 N.E.2d 1116, ¶ 37, quoting State ex rel. Consumer News Serv., 
Inc. v. Worthington City Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 58, 2002-Ohio-5311, 776 
N.E.2d 82, ¶ 54. 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
{¶ 17} Instead, “ ‘[i]t is the role of the General Assembly to balance the 
competing concerns of the public’s right to know and individual citizens’ right to 
keep private certain information that becomes part of the records of public offices.  
The General Assembly has done so, as shown by numerous statutory exceptions 
to R.C. 149.43(B), found in both the statute itself and in other parts of the Revised 
Code.’ ”  WBNS TV, at ¶ 36, quoting State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Univ. of 
Toledo Found. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 258, 266, 602 N.E.2d 1159.  In fact, the 
General Assembly has already specified the one circumstance in which inmates 
like Dehler are subject to heightened requirements in seeking public records – 
when the request concerns a criminal investigation or prosecution – by enacting 
R.C. 149.43(B)(4) (now (B)(8)).  See State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio 
St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 14-16, applying former R.C. 
149.43(B)(4).  The request here does not seek records concerning a criminal 
investigation or prosecution; therefore, Dehler must be treated the same as any 
member of the public requesting access to the same records. 
{¶ 18} Therefore, the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of 
mandamus based on its conclusion that Dehler’s request was overbroad.  And 
because that court thus found it unnecessary to address the parties’ other 
arguments concerning Dehler’s entitlement to the writ, reversal and remand are 
appropriate for the court of appeals to resolve the issues that it did not reach 
because of its erroneous holding.  Because the majority ignores our public-records 
precedent by affirming the judgment of the court of appeals, I dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Lambert Dehler, pro se. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Ashley D. Rutherford, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________