Case Title: State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Cmty. Coll.

Citation: 2012-Ohio-4228

Docket Number: 2012-0202

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-
4228.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-4228 
THE STATE EX REL. ZIDONIS, APPELLANT, v. COLUMBUS STATE  
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4228.] 
Mandamus—Public records—R.C. 149.43(B)(2)—Denial of request for public 
records as overbroad is proper when request seeks broad categories of 
records covering lengthy period—Request is not specific merely because 
the category of records it seeks is named in  custodian’s records-retention 
schedule—E-mails—Courts are not authorized to order public agencies to 
maintain records in manner that facilitates retrieval based on requester’s 
desired method. 
(No. 2012-0202—Submitted August 21, 2012—Decided September 19, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 10AP-961, 2011-Ohio-6817. 
_____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying the request of appellant, 
Sunday Zidonis, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Columbus State 
Community College (“Columbus State”), to provide access to its complaint files, 
litigation files, and certain e-mails, and to award statutory damages and 
reasonable attorney fees.  Because the court of appeals did not err in denying the 
requested extraordinary relief, we affirm the judgment. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Zidonis was employed by Columbus State from 1998 until May 
2010, when her employment was terminated.  From late 2005 through early 2008, 
Zidonis was a member of the Columbus State records-retention committee.  She 
attended meetings at which the records-retention policy was reviewed and 
discussed and offered input about records management in her work division.  One 
of the committee’s meeting agendas indicated that Zidonis would be gathering 
information for a taxonomy that would organize all inventories to make searching 
for records more efficient.  From January 2007 to May 2010, Zidonis was the 
program coordinator for the academic-quality-improvement plan, which required 
her to develop effective communication methods and ensure that essential 
information and evidence was identified, stored, and communicated. 
{¶ 3} After Zidonis’s termination from employment with Columbus 
State, her counsel, who represented her in the appeal of her discharge in the State 
Personnel Board of Review, submitted multiple requests to Columbus State 
seeking access to various records under R.C. 149.43, the Public Records Act.  
Columbus State promptly provided access to nearly 400 pages of the requested 
records, including the personnel files of Zidonis and two other college employees.  
Zidonis also requested and received a copy of the college’s records-retention 
schedule. 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
Request for Copies of E-Mails 
{¶ 4} By letter dated June 30, 2010, Zidonis, through counsel, requested 
“[c]opies of e-mails sent between Sunday Zidonis and Deborah Coleman (i.e., 
those sent to Ms. Coleman from Ms. Zidonis, and those sent to Ms. Zidonis from 
Ms. Coleman).”  By letter dated July 13, Columbus State, through its in-house 
counsel, Assistant Attorney General Jackie DeGenova, responded by specifying 
that the request was overly broad and that the college could not identify the 
specific records being requested.  DeGenova invited Zidonis’s counsel to contact 
her to assist in identifying the records being sought and to revise or clarify the 
request. 
{¶ 5} Instead of replying to DeGenova as requested, Zidonis’s counsel 
sent letters  dated July 21 and August 9, 2010, to the Vice President of Human 
Resources, asking him to describe “the nature by which staffs’ electronic e-mails 
are stored at Columbus State and how they may be retrieved” so that a follow-up 
request could be made.  On August 24, DeGenova sent Zidonis’s counsel a letter 
reiterating that the request for copies of e-mails between Zidonis and Coleman 
was overly broad and that the college was unable to identify the records sought.  
DeGenova repeated her invitation to discuss the matter with Zidonis’s counsel to 
assist in narrowing the request.  He claims that he did not call her, but the phone 
record he provided as evidence reflects a call to a phone number substantially 
different from the number DeGenova provided in her letter. 
{¶ 6} On September 3, 2010, Zidonis’s counsel sent DeGenova a letter in 
which he stated that after reviewing the Columbus State public-records retention 
policy, he assumed that “at some point, e-mails are printed off into paper form 
and then each printed e-mail is placed in the appropriate category within the 
[Columbus State] retention schedule.” 
{¶ 7} At a September 8, 2010 status conference in Zidonis’s 
administrative appeal, DeGenova again advised Zidonis’s counsel that the request 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
for e-mails was overly broad and still needed to be revised to reasonably identify 
particular records.  DeGenova informed Zidonis’s attorney that the college 
retains, organizes, and accesses its records based on the content of the records and 
asked if he could narrow the request to more clearly identify the requested records 
by specifying the year or the subject matter of the e-mails.  Zidonis’s attorney 
replied that he would provide DeGenova with the requisite “names and dates” to 
narrow the scope of the e-mails he was seeking, but he did not do so. 
{¶ 8} In mid-July 2010, i.e., around the same time that Columbus State 
first rejected Zidonis’s request for e-mails between Zidonis and Coleman as 
overbroad, DeGenova discussed with the college’s network administrator whether 
it was technically possible to search for all e-mails sent between two employees.  
The administrator said that there were no such means in the normal manner of 
organizing, maintaining, and accessing electronic records at the college and that 
programming a special search would take a substantial amount of time.  At 
DeGenova’s request, the network administrator proceeded to recover the pertinent 
e-mails from the college’s disaster-recovery system back to July 2008.  In August 
and September 2010, the administrator created a special file and program for 
DeGenova to review the e-mails to make potential redactions, and DeGenova 
proceeded with her review. 
Request to Inspect Complaint and Litigation Files 
{¶ 9} In his September 3, 2010 correspondence, Zidonis’s counsel asked 
“to look at records IUC-HR-10-04 (complaint files), and IUC-LEG-20-01 
(litigation files).”  The references in this request were to Inter-University Council 
of Ohio (“IUC”) code designations listed in Columbus State’s records-retention 
schedule.  The schedule described “Complaint Files” as “[r]ecord[s] of staff or 
student grievances based on equal opportunity and affirmative action regulations,” 
which are “arranged alphabetically.”  The schedule listed “Litigation Files,” but 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
did not describe them.  Under the retention schedule, complaint and litigation files 
are to be retained for six years after they were last active. 
{¶ 10} Although Zidonis’s counsel asked whether there was a way “to 
look at these records for certain periods of time (e.g., over the past year),” he 
never revised the request to include a specific time period.  Instead, Zidonis’s 
counsel sent subsequent requests on September 14 and 22, 2010, in which he 
asked when he could come to Columbus State to review the requested complaint 
and litigation files.  He emphasized in these requests that the “record retention 
period for these documents is six years from their active life.” 
{¶ 11} At the September 8 status conference in Zidonis’s administrative 
appeal,  DeGenova told Zidonis’s counsel that she would respond to his records 
request.  DeGenova stated in a subsequent letter to Zidonis’s counsel that she had 
informed him at the September 8 conference that Columbus State retains, 
organizes, and accesses its records based on content. 
Mandamus Case 
{¶ 12} In October 2010, Zidonis filed a petition in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel Columbus State to provide 
her with access to the requested complaint files, litigation files, and e-mail 
records.  Zidonis also requested statutory damages and reasonable attorney fees. 
{¶ 13} On November 3, 2010, Columbus State sent Zidonis’s counsel a 
letter reiterating its denial of her request for all e-mails between Zidonis and 
Coleman as ambiguous and overly broad and stating that the college was “unable 
to reasonably identify the specific records, subject matter, time-frame or any other 
reasonable aspect of specificity by which to identify the e-mails.”  Columbus 
State noted that “each employee of the College has the ability to create documents 
and folders as part of the e-mail system and the particular records series to which 
the records belong, according to their individual needs.  For example, if you 
request to review certain e-mails in the folders created by Ms. Zidonis or [her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
supervisor] Dr. Coleman, it is likely the College can search by this method.  The 
College is unable to and is not required to provide access to entire record series or 
categories.” 
{¶ 14} Nevertheless, Columbus State provided with this letter a CD 
containing redacted copies of e-mails retrieved by use of the special program 
created at DeGenova’s instructions to search for e-mails from Zidonis’s and 
Coleman’s computers.  The CD contained approximately 200 e-mails and 
attachments,  including 59 e-mails between Zidonis and Coleman in 2009. 
{¶ 15} In this letter, Columbus State also denied Zidonis’s request for 
complaint and litigation files as ambiguous and overly broad.  DeGenova noted 
that she had previously provided Zidonis’s counsel with a copy of the Columbus 
State records-retention schedule as part of her explanation regarding how the 
records are maintained and accessed and that she was “unable to reasonably 
identify specific records which are being requested for this inspection and again, 
the College is unable to and is not required to provide access to entire record 
series or categories.” 
{¶ 16} Columbus State again offered in this letter to discuss the requests 
with Zidonis’s counsel, but no further discussions were conducted. 
{¶ 17} After the court of appeals denied Columbus State’s motion to 
dismiss Zidonis’s mandamus petition, the parties submitted evidence and briefs.  
In December 2011, the court of appeals denied the writ. 
{¶ 18} This cause is now before the court upon Zidonis’s appeal as of 
right. 
Analysis 
Mandamus 
{¶ 19} “Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with 
R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.”  State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for 
Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6; R.C. 149.43(C)(1).  We construe the Public 
Records Act liberally 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.  But the relator must still establish entitlement to the requested 
extraordinary relief by clear and convincing evidence.  State ex rel. Doner v. 
Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, 958 N.E.2d 1235, paragraph three of 
the syllabus. 
Complaint and Litigation Files 
{¶ 20} Zidonis asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the 
requested writ of mandamus to compel Columbus State to provide access to its 
complaint files and litigation files on the basis that her request for these records 
was overbroad. 
{¶ 21} Zidonis requested broad categories of records—complaint files and 
litigation files.  The request covered a lengthy period of time—at least six years 
and potentially much longer, because for both records categories, she specified 
the college’s records-retention schedule period of six years from when these files 
were last active.  “ ‘[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, 8th Dist. No. 63737, 1993 
WL 173743, *1 (Apr. 28, 1993), affirmed, 68 Ohio St.3d 117, 623 N.E.2d 1202 
(1993).  In identifying records for purposes of presenting a viable request, 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. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d 619, 624, 640 N.E.2d 174 
(1994), citing State ex rel. Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752, 577 N.E.2d 
444 (1989).  In Zauderer, the court held that a request that a city police chief, 
county sheriff, and highway patrol superintendent provide access to “all traffic 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
accident reports of record” was improper because it was “first, unreasonable in 
scope and, second, if granted, would interfere with the sanctity of the 
recordkeeping process itself.”  Id. at 756. 
{¶ 22} This court has held that comparable requests for broad categories 
of records were overbroad.  For example, in State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 
Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 19, we examined a request 
for all the work-related e-mail messages, text messages, and correspondence of a 
state representative during her entire tenure.  We held that the request was 
overbroad because it impermissibly sought what approximated a “complete 
duplication” of the representative’s files.  We so held even though the 
representative had been in office for only six months when these records were 
requested.  Id. at ¶ 4.  And more recently, in State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatny, 127 
Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711, 939 N.E.2d 831, this court held that a request 
for all records relating to a prison quartermaster’s orders for and receipt of 
clothing and shoes for a period of over seven years was also an improper, 
overbroad request.  See also State ex rel. Davila v. Bellefontaine, 3d Dist. No. 8-
11-01, 2011-Ohio-4890 (request for all reel-to-reel tapes made for the entire 15 
years that the recording system was in daily use was overly broad). 
{¶ 23} Similarly, Zidonis’s request, which sought whole categories of 
complaint and litigation files without any limitation as to content or time period, 
was overbroad as well. 
{¶ 24} Zidonis asserts that her request was sufficiently specific because 
(1) she offered to narrow her request to inspect Columbus State’s complaint and 
litigation files to shorter periods of time, e.g., over the past year, and (2) her 
request followed the language of Columbus State’s own records-retention 
schedule. 
{¶ 25} These assertions, however, lack merit.  Although Zidonis’s 
September 3, 2010 request asked whether there was a way to look at the requested 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
records for specific, limited periods of time, she never revised her request to 
specify a shorter period than the retention schedule’s six years from a file’s last 
activity.  See State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatny, 11th Dist. No. 2009-T-0075, 2010-
Ohio-3052, ¶ 24 (rejecting as inadequate the requester’s offer to limit a records 
request to the preceding three years because, inter alia, requester never indicated 
that he was actually modifying his request), affirmed, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-
Ohio-5711, 939 N.E.2d 831.  Instead, Zidonis reiterated in her September 14 and 
22, 2010 requests that the “record retention period for these documents is six 
years from their active life,” which was reasonably interpreted by Columbus State 
to mean that Zidonis had not narrowed her original request to a shorter, more 
definite period of time. 
{¶ 26} Moreover, the court of appeals correctly held that a “records 
request is not specific merely because it names a broad category of records listed 
within an agency’s retention schedule.”  2011-Ohio-6817, at ¶ 5.  For example, 
the retention schedule for the administrative records of Ohio courts includes broad 
categories like “correspondence and general office records,” “employee history 
and discipline records,” “fiscal records,” and “payroll records.”  Sup.R. 26.01(F), 
(J), (K), and (M).  Requests for each of these record categories without any 
temporal or content-based limitation would likely be overbroad even though the 
categories are so named in the schedule.  Manifestly, each request—and each 
retention category when the request is structured after such a category—must be 
analyzed under the totality of facts and circumstances. 
{¶ 27} Therefore, the court of appeals properly denied Zidonis’s request 
for a writ of mandamus to compel Columbus State to provide her with access to 
the requested complaint and litigation files because her request was overbroad. 
E-Mails 
{¶ 28} Zidonis next asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying her 
request for a writ of mandamus to compel Columbus State to provide her with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
copies of all e-mails between herself and her supervisor during her employment at 
the college.  Zidonis claims that R.C. 149.43(B)(2) imposes a duty on Columbus 
State to maintain its e-mail records so that they could be retrieved based on sender 
and recipient status. 
{¶ 29} R.C. 149.43(B)(2) provides that “[t]o facilitate broader access to 
public records, a public office or the person responsible for public records shall 
organize and maintain public records in a manner that they can be made available 
for inspection or copying in accordance with division (B) of this section.”  Under 
R.C. 149.43(B)(1), “all public records responsive to the request shall be promptly 
prepared and made available for inspection to any person at all reasonable times 
during regular business hours.” 
{¶ 30} R.C. 149.43(B)(2) does not expressly require public offices to 
maintain e-mail records so that they can be retrieved based on sender and 
recipient status.  “ ‘It is axiomatic that in mandamus proceedings, the creation of 
the legal duty that a relator seeks to enforce is the distinct function of the 
legislative branch of government, and courts are not authorized to create the legal 
duty enforceable in mandamus.’ (Emphasis deleted.)”  State ex rel. Patton v. 
Rhodes, 129 Ohio St.3d 182, 2011-Ohio-3093, 950 N.E.2d 965, ¶ 17, quoting 
State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2010-
Ohio-3267, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 18; see also State ex rel. Bardwell v. Cleveland, 
126 Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-2219, 931 N.E.2d 1080 (court of appeals was not 
authorized to create duty on the part of the city and its police chief to require 
pawnbrokers to submit certain reports on regular paper rather than on index cards 
when there was no such requirement under R.C. 149.43(B)(2)).  While it may be 
preferable for public offices to include a program that would permit easier 
searching of work-related e-mails based on sender and recipient—which 
Columbus State eventually did here to retrieve pertinent e-mails responsive to 
January Term, 2012 
11 
 
Zidonis’s request—we cannot require that they do so when R.C. 149.43(B)(2) 
does not require it. 
{¶ 31} Zidonis’s citation of State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. 
Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 2008-Ohio-6253, 899 N.E.2d 961, to 
support her claim is misplaced.  The responding agency in that case made no 
claim that the request for e-mail records was overbroad.  Instead, our holding was 
limited to the appropriate factors for determining when a public office has a duty 
under R.C. 149.43(B) to recover and provide access to e-mails that were 
unlawfully deleted.  Id. at ¶ 19.  There is no issue in this case relating to deleted e-
mails, and Toledo Blade is irrelevant. 
{¶ 32} Therefore, the court of appeals did not err in denying Zidonis’s 
request for e-mails based on her claim that Columbus State had violated R.C. 
149.43(B)(2) by not initially organizing its records so that work-related e-mails 
could be retrieved based on sender and recipient status.  The mere fact that the 
court of appeals’ denial may have been premised on an incorrect rationale1 does 
not require a different result.  In re G.T.B., 128 Ohio St.3d 502, 2011-Ohio-1789, 
947 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 7 (“we will not reverse a correct judgment simply because it 
was based in whole or in part on an incorrect rationale”). 
R.C. 149.43(B)(2) Requirement to Inform Requester 
of the Manner in which Records are Maintained and Accessed 
{¶ 33} R.C. 149.43(B)(2) requires the office or person responsible for 
public records, when faced with an overbroad request, to “provide the requester 
with an opportunity to revise the request by informing the requester of the manner 
                                          
 
1.  The court of appeals concluded that Zidonis’s request for e-mails was improper because she did 
not “identify e-mails related to the organization, function, policy, decision, procedures, operation 
or work-related activity” of Columbus State.  2011-Ohio-6817, at ¶ 11.  Zidonis correctly observes 
that a request for e-mails that does not specify that it seeks “work-related” e-mails is not 
necessarily defective.  And Columbus State is simply wrong in arguing that an “e-mail does not 
become a public record when it appears on a server in a public office” and that e-mail becomes a 
public record only when it is placed in an electronic subject-matter folder or is printed on paper.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
in which records are maintained by the public office and accessed in the ordinary 
course of the public office’s or person’s duties.”  Zidonis claims that the court of 
appeals erred in failing to find that Columbus State violated this requirement with 
regard to her requests for complaint files, litigation files, and e-mails between 
herself and her supervisor.  See, e.g., State ex rel. ESPN, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 
132 Ohio St.3d 212, 2012-Ohio-2690, 970 N.E.2d 939, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 34} For the following reasons, however, the court of appeals did not err 
in rejecting Zidonis’s claim. 
{¶ 35} First, there is evidence that Columbus State explained at a 
September 8, 2010 status conference in Zidonis’s administrative appeal, which 
was about a month before she filed her public-records mandamus action, that the 
college retains, organizes, and accesses its records based on content. 
{¶ 36} Second, before Zidonis requested the college’s complaint files, the 
college provided her with a copy of its records-retention schedule, which defined 
these files as records of “staff or student grievances based on equal opportunity 
and affirmative action regulations” with the “[f]iles arranged alphabetically.” 
{¶ 37} Third, Zidonis’s counsel indicated in the record requests that he 
understood how the requested e-mails were maintained and accessed.  For 
example, in the September 3, 2010 request, Zidonis’s counsel stated that based on 
his review of the college’s records-retention schedule, he assumed that e-mails are 
printed onto paper and then each printed e-mail is placed in the appropriate 
records category in the retention schedule.  And her counsel ultimately revised a 
comparable request for e-mails between Zidonis and a different college employee 
to limit the request to a specific time period and subject-matter, with the result 
that the college was able to produce several responsive records. 
{¶ 38} Fourth, from her prior employment, Zidonis already had 
knowledge of how the college maintained and accessed certain records.  State ex 
rel. Vaughn v. Money, 104 Ohio St.3d 322, 2004-Ohio-6561, 819 N.E.2d 681, 
January Term, 2012 
13 
 
¶ 11 (mandamus will not lie to compel a respondent to give the relator something 
he already has). 
{¶ 39} Fifth, notwithstanding Zidonis’s failure to pose a viable request, 
Columbus State proceeded to create a program to search for the requested e-mails 
and ultimately provided copies of them to her. 
{¶ 40} Finally, Zidonis ignored Columbus State’s multiple invitations to 
contact its in-house counsel to help Zidonis refine her overbroad requests.  See 
State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901, 906 
N.E.2d 1105, ¶ 18 (“R.C. 149.43 contemplates that the requester and the public-
records custodian cooperate in fulfilling a request”). 
{¶ 41} Consequently, the court of appeals did not err in determining that 
Columbus State had complied with R.C. 149.43(B)(2). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 42} Based on the foregoing, Zidonis did not establish by the requisite 
clear and convincing evidence that Columbus State violated R.C. 149.43 by 
denying her record requests.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals denying the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
James J. Leo Law Office, and James J. Leo, for appellant. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jeffery W. Clark and Holly 
LeClair, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
______________________