Case Title: State ex rel. Ware v. DeWine

Citation: 2020-Ohio-5148

Docket Number: 2020-0168

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-11-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Ware v. DeWine, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5148.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-5148 
THE STATE EX REL. WARE, APPELLANT, v. DEWINE, GOVERNOR, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Ware v. DeWine, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-5148.] 
Mandamus—Public records—When an affidavit contains legal arguments and 
conclusions, a court will disregard those statements—The fact that a record 
is mentioned in a records-retention schedule does not create a question of 
fact as to whether the public office actually maintains that record—
Governor’s office satisfied duty to make records available by sending them, 
by certified mail, to the prison where relator is incarcerated. 
(No. 2020-0168—Submitted August 18, 2020—Decided November 5, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 19AP-161, 
2019-Ohio-5203. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 1} Appellant, Kimani Ware, appeals the judgment of the Tenth District 
Court of Appeals denying his request for a writ of mandamus against appellee, 
Governor Mike DeWine.  We affirm the Tenth District’s judgment. 
I. Background 
A. Pleadings and motions in the court of appeals 
{¶ 2} Ware is an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI”).  
On January 3, 2019, he sent a public-records request to the governor by certified 
mail.  Ware requested copies of the governor’s office’s (1) records-retention 
schedule, (2) public-records policy, (3) records-management manual, (4) index of 
county commissioners, (5) index of appointment records for persons appointed to 
public office by the governor, and (6) current employee roster. 
{¶ 3} By a letter dated January 28, 2019, the governor’s office 
acknowledged receipt of the request and promised a response within a reasonable 
period of time.  Ware sent a follow-up inquiry on February 20 and alleges that he 
received no response.  Therefore, on March 19, he filed an original action against 
the governor in the court of appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the 
production of the documents as well as an award of statutory damages. 
{¶ 4} The governor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground 
of mootness.  He attached to the motion an affidavit from Sean T. McCullough, 
assistant chief counsel to the governor, attesting that McCullough sent responsive 
documents to Ware on March 13.  Copies of McCullough’s cover letter and the 
records provided to Ware were attached as exhibits to the motion. 
{¶ 5} Ware filed a motion for summary judgment, but the Tenth District 
magistrate stayed consideration of that motion pending a ruling on the governor’s 
motion to dismiss.  In his memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss, Ware 
argued that a writ should issue because even though the governor claimed to have 
sent the records on March 13, the complaint made clear that as of March 19, Ware 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
had not received them.  Ware’s memorandum was silent as to whether he received 
the records after the complaint was filed. 
{¶ 6} On May 3, 2019, the magistrate converted the governor’s motion to 
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.  Ware filed a memorandum in 
opposition to the governor’s summary-judgment motion on May 22.  In an attached 
affidavit, Ware attested, “[T]o this day I still have not receive[d] the requested 
public records.” 
{¶ 7} On May 31, the governor filed a combined reply brief in support of 
his own summary-judgment motion and memorandum in opposition to Ware’s 
(previously stayed) motion for summary judgment.  The governor submitted a 
second affidavit from McCullough, again asserting that responsive documents were 
sent to Ware in March 2019, before Ware filed his complaint.  In addition, the 
affidavit stated that because Ware claimed not to have received the first mailing, 
McCullough had re-sent the documents to him on May 28. 
{¶ 8} In addition, the governor submitted an affidavit from Julie Loomis, 
the warden’s assistant at TCI.  According to Loomis, all incoming mail from state 
chief executives addressed to inmates is processed as “legal mail” and recorded on 
the “Legal Mail Log.”  And the Legal Mail Log, which was also submitted as an 
exhibit, shows that on March 19, 2019, TCI received legal mail addressed to Ware 
from the office of the governor. 
{¶ 9} On June 14, 2019, Ware filed a document captioned “Affidavit in 
support of the attached evidence pursuant to Local Rule 13(G)” (the “June 14 
affidavit”).  The June 14 affidavit asserted that the production of records in May 
was incomplete: according to Ware, he received no documents responsive to 
request Nos. 3 (the records-management manual) or 4 (the index of county 
commissioners) and an incomplete response to request No. 5 (the index of 
appointment records). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 10} In response, the governor filed a surreply brief, along with a third 
affidavit from McCullough.  McCullough stated that the governor’s office does not 
have a records-management manual or an index of commissioners and that it 
provided all the pages of the “index of appointments” that were in its possession at 
the time of the request. 
B. The magistrate’s decision and the court of appeals’ judgment 
{¶ 11} On July 19, 2019, the magistrate issued a decision recommending 
that the court deny Ware’s motion for summary judgment, grant the governor’s 
motion for summary judgment, and deny the writ of mandamus.  In rendering his 
decision, the magistrate made clear that he would consider Ware’s June 14 affidavit 
for only a limited purpose.  According to the magistrate, the June 14 affidavit was 
“composed entirely of legal arguments and conclusory statements of law” and 
would therefore be considered “solely as non-evidentiary material in the form of 
argument.”  2019-Ohio-5203, ¶ 36. 
{¶ 12} The magistrate rejected Ware’s claim that the governor’s responses 
were incomplete.  With respect to request Nos. 3 and 4, the magistrate credited 
McCullough’s affidavit testimony that the governor’s office does not maintain a 
records-management manual or a list of county commissioners.  Ware argued that 
R.C. 107.10(C) requires the governor’s office to keep a record of commissioners 
and of information concerning their appointments and that the existence of the 
statute created a material question of fact concerning whether the governor’s office 
in fact had the records.  The magistrate rejected that argument: “Here, respondent 
may have a legal duty to maintain the requested record listing county 
commissioners, but having failed to do so, respondent has no duty to produce it in 
response to a public-records request because the Public Records Act concerns 
existing records, not records that ought to exist.”  2019-Ohio-5203 at ¶ 48.  The 
magistrate did not make a separate finding concerning request No. 5—the list of 
appointees—but he appears to have accepted McCullough’s representation that the 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
governor’s office provided everything it had, even though the provided list included 
only one name. 
{¶ 13} As for Ware’s claim that he never received the March mailing, the 
magistrate concluded that this assertion did not create a dispute of material fact.  
According to the magistrate, McCullough’s affidavit and exhibits established that 
the governor’s office sent responsive records in March, and Loomis’s affidavit and 
exhibits established that a package of mail sent from the governor’s office to Ware 
was received at TCI around the same time.  According to the magistrate, the 
governor satisfied his obligation by mailing the records to the institution where 
Ware is held, and having done so, “[t]he governor’s office could do nothing more 
to make the records ‘available’ to relator, and no writ issued by this court could 
compel the governor’s office to do more than was done with respect to the March 
19, 2019 mailing.”  Id. at ¶ 44.  Finally, the magistrate concluded that the time taken 
to respond to the public-records request—from January 28 to March 19—was 
reasonable, and he therefore declined to recommend an award of statutory damages. 
{¶ 14} Ware filed objections to the magistrate’s decision.  He identified 
three alleged errors: (1) the magistrate should have considered the June 14 affidavit 
as evidence, (2) the magistrate erroneously concluded that the governor’s office 
sent documents in March 2019, and (3) the evidence contradicted the magistrate’s 
finding that the governor’s office does not keep a list of county commissioners. 
{¶ 15} On December 17, 2019, the court of appeals overruled Ware’s 
objections, adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and 
denied the writ of mandamus.  2019-Ohio-5203 at ¶ 8.  Ware appealed. 
II. Legal analysis 
{¶ 16} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator seeking to compel 
compliance with the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, must establish, by clear and 
convincing evidence, a clear legal right to the requested relief and a clear legal duty 
on the part of the respondent to provide it.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Cty. Gen. Health Dist., 154 Ohio St.3d 297, 2018-Ohio-3721, 114 N.E.3d 152,  
¶ 12. 
{¶ 17} This court reviews a decision granting summary judgment de novo.  
Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-4674, 955 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 12.  
“Summary judgment is appropriate when an examination of all relevant materials 
filed in the action reveals that ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ”  Id., quoting 
Civ.R. 56(C). 
{¶ 18} Ware presents three propositions of law. 
{¶ 19} In his first proposition of law, he asserts that the court of appeals 
erred when it refused to consider his June 14 affidavit as substantive evidence.  The 
court of appeals agreed with the magistrate that the June 14 affidavit contained only 
nonevidentiary material.  2019-Ohio-5203 at ¶ 4.  In his merit brief, Ware does not 
challenge this characterization of his affidavit or suggest that his affidavit contained 
proper evidentiary statements.  Instead, his sole argument is that the affidavit must 
be considered as evidence because it was confirmed under oath before a person 
authorized to administer oaths.  But merely executing an affidavit under oath does 
not make the content of an affidavit proper or admissible.  To the contrary, when 
an affidavit contains legal arguments and conclusions, a court will disregard those 
statements.  See State ex rel. Columbia Res., Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
111 Ohio St.3d 167, 2006-Ohio-5019, 855 N.E.2d 815, ¶ 23. 
{¶ 20} Moreover, even if the June 14 affidavit contained factual averments 
that should have been considered, Ware does not identify what those statements 
were or how they might be relevant.  In other words, he has not shown that he was 
prejudiced by the exclusion of his affidavit.  See, e.g., Logansport Savs. Bank, 
F.S.B. v. Shope, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-148, 2016-Ohio-278, ¶ 28 (an 
appellant challenging a decision to admit or exclude evidence, including affidavit 
testimony, must show material prejudice). 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
{¶ 21} In his second proposition of law, Ware notes that along with the June 
14 affidavit, he filed a copy of the governor’s office’s records-retention schedule.  
One item on the schedule reads, “Record of Commissioners (R.C. 107.10(C)).”  The 
description of that item in the schedule, “name, post office address, the state, 
territory or county where the appointee resides, date of commission, and the 
beginning and expiration of term of each commissioner appointed,” tracks the 
language of R.C. 107.10(C).  In other words, the governor’s own records-retention 
schedule addresses how to keep the index of commissioners.  Ware argues that it 
was error to disregard the schedule attached to the June 14 affidavit, because it 
proves that the governor’s office does keep the record of commissioners. 
{¶ 22} In his merit brief, the governor contends that Ware waived this 
argument by failing to raise it in his objections to the magistrate’s decision.  But 
Ware did preserve this argument in his objections, although he did not present it 
under a separate heading. 
{¶ 23} However, Ware’s argument is meritless.  The court of appeals did 
not exclude the schedule as evidence when it adopted the magistrate’s decision to 
disregard the affidavit.  Indeed, the schedule was already in the record, as an exhibit 
to McCullough’s first affidavit.  The fact that the record of commissioners was 
mentioned in the retention schedule does not create a question of fact as to whether 
the office actually maintained those records.  We reject Ware’s second proposition 
of law. 
{¶ 24} In his third proposition of law, Ware contends that the court of 
appeals erred by denying his request for statutory damages.  Ware’s request meets 
the threshold requirement for statutory damages because he served his request by 
certified mail.  See R.C. 149.43(C)(2).  A person requesting public records “shall” 
be entitled to an award of statutory damages “if a court determines that the public 
office or the person responsible for public records failed to comply with an 
obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section.”  R.C. 149.43(C)(2).  One 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
obligation imposed by R.C. 149.43(B) is to prepare responsive records and make 
them available for inspection “promptly.”  See, e.g., State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent 
State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 13, 2018-Ohio-5108, 123 N.E.3d 887, ¶ 22 (awarding 
statutory damages because the respondent took an unreasonable length of time to 
produce the records). 
{¶ 25} Ware does not argue that a response from the governor in March 
would have been untimely; he asserts only that he did not receive any documents 
until May.  But the evidence shows that the governor’s office satisfied its duty to 
make the records available by sending them, by certified mail, to TCI in March.  
What happened to the documents after that was beyond the governor’s control.  
Ware has therefore identified no basis for an award of statutory damages. 
{¶ 26} For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Kimani Ware, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Halli Brownfield Watson and Mark W. 
Altier, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
_________________