Case Title: State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State University

Citation: 2018-Ohio-5108

Docket Number: 2016-0615

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5108.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-5108 
THE STATE EX REL. KESTERSON v. KENT STATE UNIVERSITY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-5108.] 
Mandamus—Public-records law—Public office’s production of all responsive 
public records was untimely—Writ denied—Statutory damages and 
attorney fees awarded—Costs denied. 
(No. 2016-0615—Submitted May 8, 2018—Decided December 20, 2018.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
KENNEDY, J.,  
{¶ 1} Relator, Lauren Kesterson, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel 
respondent, Kent State University, to provide her with certain records regarding 
student-athletes under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.  Because Kesterson has 
not shown that she is entitled to additional records beyond those that she has already 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
received pursuant to her request, we deny the writ.  We award Kesterson statutory 
damages in the amount of $1,000 and attorney fees, but deny court costs. 
Background 
{¶ 2} On February 2, 2016, by e-mail and certified mail, Kesterson sent a 
public-records request to Kent State, seeking three categories of records: 
 
1.  All personnel records, including records of training and 
discipline, for the following individuals: Karen Linder, Eric Oakley, 
Jessica Toocheck, Erin Barton, and Joel Nielsen; 
2.  All records regarding training or information provided to 
the Kent State varsity softball team regarding Title IX [20 U.S.C. 
1681 et seq.], gender equity, sexual harassment, sexual assault, 
Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services, or the 
University’s policies or procedures for reporting instances of 
gender-based harassment or sexual assault (from the 2012-13 
academic year to the present); and 
3.  All records regarding student-athlete reviews of Coach 
Karen Linder from the 2010-11 academic year until her resignation 
in August 2015. 
  
{¶ 3} On February 3, 2016, Kent State acknowledged the request and stated 
that records were being identified and gathered.  Kesterson sent multiple follow-up 
requests that month, and on February 24, Kent State provided her with redacted 
personnel files for each of the five identified individuals and a student-athlete 
handbook.  The following day, Kent State sent redacted summaries of student-
athlete reviews of softball coach Karen Linder, bringing the total amount of 
documents provided to Kesterson to more than 750 pages of records. 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
{¶ 4} After receiving the documents, Kesterson contacted Kent State to 
question its response and to request legal authority for the redactions.  On March 2, 
she wrote to Kent State raising additional concerns, including its failure to provide 
the originals of the student-athlete reviews and records of sexual-assault training. 
{¶ 5} Kent State responded with a letter on March 14 and provided 
additional records, including Linder’s 2008 and 2011 employment contracts.  At 
that time, Kent State also gave Kesterson an undated memorandum from Loretta 
Shields, Executive Director of Benefits and Compliance, to the Equal 
Employment/Affirmative Action Coordinator, Erin Barton, regarding Barton’s 
“excessive use of accrued sick/vacation leave.”  Kent State explained to Kesterson 
that the originals of the student-athlete reviews had been destroyed, pursuant to the 
university’s records-retention policy, after the summaries were created.  With 
respect to Kesterson’s request for training regarding Title IX, sexual assault, sexual 
harassment, and other related matters Kent State responded, “You were provided 
with the student [athlete] handbook, which is responsive to this request.”  Further, 
the March 14 letter explained that the school did not “centrally maintain” records 
involving Title IX/sexual-assault “[t]raining provided to the softball team, 
specifically and separately from training provided to student-athletes, or even the 
general student body *  *  *.  Training materials on these issues are kept by the 
sponsoring departments and organizations, not the softball team.”  It also stated that 
Kent State did “not view R.C. 149.43 as requiring an item-by-item list of the 
grounds for each redaction absent a specific question.” 
{¶ 6} Kesterson filed her mandamus complaint with this court on April 21, 
2016, alleging that Kent State had failed to fully respond to her February 2 request 
and “littered the records that were provided with improper redactions” and that her 
request “has been outstanding for 78 days.”  The complaint asks for a “peremptory 
writ of mandamus directing Kent State * * * to make responsive public records 
available promptly and without improper redactions.”  Additionally, it seeks an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
award of attorney fees, court costs, and “any other relief available to the firm under 
R.C. 149.43 * * * and any other relief as is appropriate.”  We referred this case to 
mediation on August 5, 2016, and Kent State subsequently produced more than 200 
additional pages of records through November of 2016, including presentations 
provided to “all incoming Kent State students” that addressed sexual harassment 
and sexual misconduct. 
{¶ 7} On October 11, 2017, we denied Kent State’s motion to dismiss and 
granted Kesterson an alternative writ setting forth a schedule for the parties to 
present evidence and file briefs.  150 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2017-Ohio-8136, 83 N.E.3d 
936.  Kent State submitted evidence, and both parties submitted briefs. 
Kesterson’s federal litigation 
{¶ 8} On February 9, 2016, one week after sending her public-records 
request, Kesterson filed a complaint against Kent State and Karen Linder in federal 
district court alleging, among other claims, civil-rights violations under Title IX of 
the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended.  In March 2017, Kesterson served 
discovery requests on the defendants, including requests for production of 
documents (“RPD”).  Based on a November 20, 2017 affidavit from Kent State 
Associate Counsel, Nichole DeCaprio, the university asserts that it has provided 
over 7,000 pages of records to Kesterson in connection with her RPD.  Kesterson’s 
federal litigation is ongoing. 
Ohio’s Public Records Act 
{¶ 9} It has long been the “ ‘rule in Ohio *  *  * that public records are the 
people’s records, and that the officials in whose custody they happen to be are 
merely trustees for the people.’ ”  State ex rel. Patterson v. Ayers, 171 Ohio St. 369, 
371, 171 N.E.2d 508 (1960), quoting 35 Ohio Jurisprudence, Inspection of Records: 
Generally, Section 41, at 45 (1934).  “The Public Records Act reflects [Ohio’s] 
policy that ‘open government serves the public interest and our democratic  
system.’ ”  State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 13, quoting State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364, 2006-
Ohio-1825, 848 N.E.2d 472, ¶ 20.  It states that “[u]pon a request made in 
accordance with division (B) of this section * * * a public office * * * shall transmit 
a copy of a public record to any person * * * within a reasonable period of time 
after receiving the request for the copy.”  R.C. 149.43(B)(7). 
{¶ 10} The act defines “public record” as “records kept by any public office, 
including, but not limited to, state * * * units.”  R.C. 149.43(A)(1); see also R.C. 
149.011(A) (defining “public office”).  R.C. 149.011(G) provides that “ ‘[r]ecords’ 
includes any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or 
characteristic * * * created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any 
public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which serves to document the 
organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other 
activities of the office.”  Moreover, “a state university is considered a ‘public office’ 
for purposes of the Public Records Act.”  State ex rel. Rea v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 
81 Ohio St.3d 527, 530, 692 N.E.2d 596 (1998). 
Mandamus 
{¶ 11} At the time Kesterson filed her complaint, “[m]andamus [was] the 
appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records 
Act.”  (Emphasis added.)  State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible 
Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 
843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6; R.C. 149.43(C)(1).1  
{¶ 12} Despite  the  liberal construction of the Public Records Act “in favor 
of disclosure,” State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 133 
                                                 
1 Relator’s complaint is governed by former R.C. 149.43 (2015 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 64), which was 
effective on the dates she made her public-records request and commenced her original action before 
this court.  See State ex rel. Doe v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 44, 2009-Ohio-4149, 914 N.E.2d 159,  
¶ 24 (“Because this case was filed and pertains to a records request made after the effective date of 
the amendment [to R.C. 149.43], the amended version * * * applies here”).  All references to R.C. 
149.43, the Public Records Act, refer to that version unless otherwise noted.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Ohio St.3d 122, 2012-Ohio-4228, 976 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 19, Kesterson “must still 
establish entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief by clear and convincing 
evidence,” State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 133 Ohio 
St.3d 139, 2012-Ohio-4246, 976 N.E.2d 877, ¶ 16.  Unlike in other mandamus 
cases, “[r]elators in public-records mandamus cases need not establish the lack of 
an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”  State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties 
Union of Ohio v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-
625, 943 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 24. 
{¶ 13} Under R.C. 149.43(B), a public office may produce the requested 
records prior to the court’s decision, which renders the mandamus claim for 
production of records moot.  State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168, 
2011-Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 18-22.  Nonetheless, a relator may still be 
entitled to other forms of relief if the production of records was not completed 
“within a reasonable period of time.”  R.C. 149.43(B) and (C). 
Analysis 
{¶ 14} Kent State contends that it fully responded to Kesterson’s February 
2, 2016 request by February 25, 2016.  In contrast, Kesterson’s brief asserts that 
Kent State did not complete its response. 
Timeliness of Kent State’s production of responsive records 
{¶ 15} Kesterson argues that because Kent State provided additional 
responsive documents in October and November 2016, up to nine months after her 
request, it violated its statutory duty under R.C. 149.43(B) to promptly prepare and 
provide all responsive records “within a reasonable period of time.”  Indeed, 
“[s]tatutory damages may be awarded if the public record has not been provided 
promptly.”  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters, 148 Ohio St.3d 595, 2016-
Ohio-8195, 71 N.E.3d 1076, ¶ 22; see also R.C. 149.43(C)(1). 
{¶ 16} “Reasonable period of time” is not defined in the Public Records 
Act, but “the determination of what is ‘reasonable’ depends upon all the pertinent 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
facts and circumstances.”  Deters at ¶ 23.  Moreover, “R.C. 149.43(A) envisions an 
opportunity on the part of the public office to examine records prior to inspection 
in order to make appropriate redactions of exempt materials.”  State ex rel. Warren 
Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d 619, 623, 640 N.E.2d 174 (1994). 
{¶ 17} Kent State’s production, by February 25, 2016, of over 700 pages of 
responsive records was not untimely under the circumstances.  Kesterson requested 
full personnel files for five Kent State employees, in addition to all Title IX/sexual-
assault training materials provided to the softball team and all student-athlete 
reviews of Linder from the 2010-2011 academic year until her resignation in 
August 2015.  Kent State promptly acknowledged Kesterson’s request the next day, 
immediately began to compile the responsive records, and provided those records 
to Kesterson approximately three weeks later.  These actions contradict any claim 
that the university’s response was untimely.  See State ex rel. Shaughnessy v. City 
of Cleveland, 149 Ohio St.3d 612, 2016-Ohio-8447, 76 N.E.3d 1171, ¶ 11, 17 
(noting 24-day delay in producing responsive records not unreasonable in light of 
steps city took to respond, including a comprehensive database search and 
submission of records to the law department for review and redaction). 
{¶ 18} Kent State’s own evidence demonstrates that it did not complete its 
response on February 25, 2016, as it contends; the response was not complete until 
November 9, 2016.  The additional materials that Kent State produced in October 
and November 2016 also amounted to “public records” and were responsive to the 
second category of records in Kesterson’s request.  The records produced on 
October 28 included PowerPoint slideshow presentations provided annually to 
incoming students addressing issues such as consent to sexual activity, “sexual 
misconduct,” “acts of violence,” and the processes for responding to inappropriate 
student conduct.  The slides also provide the contact information for campus police, 
psychological services, and the Sexual Assault Response Team.  These records 
were provided to all incoming students, including those on the varsity softball team.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
And the production on November 9 included a PowerPoint slideshow presentation 
created by the Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services 
addressing consent, power-based personal violence, sexual assault, rape and related 
crimes, statistics of sexual assault on campuses, and what rights and resources are 
afforded to students (including the contact information for the university’s Title IX 
Coordinator). 
{¶ 19} Kent State does not dispute that it “created” these items, all of which 
appear to “document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, 
operations, or other activities” of the university.  See R.C. 149.011(G).  Moreover, 
Kent State has not alleged that the records produced in October and November 2016 
were not available in February of that year, nor has it contended that it was required 
to create these records.  See State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 
2007-Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530, ¶ 15 (“Respondents have no duty to create or 
provide access to nonexistent records”).  Kent State also concedes that it made no 
redactions to the documents produced in October and November 2016.  See Warren 
Newspapers, 70 Ohio St.3d at 623, 640 N.E.2d 174.  Those facts, together with its 
assertion that upon receiving the public-records request in February, DeCaprio 
contacted “relevant departments and individuals” such as Kent State’s Human 
Resources Records, Human Resources Training and Development, and Athletics 
departments, belie Kent State’s argument that it timely provided all responsive 
records. 
{¶ 20} Although Kent State contends that the records it provided in October 
and November were not responsive to Kesterson’s request, and that this production 
was done merely as a “courtesy,” we are not persuaded.  These materials were 
public records, and despite DeCaprio’s assertion that Kesterson’s February 2, 2016 
request was limited to Title IX and sexual-assault/harassment training offered 
exclusively to the softball team, this request was broader and encompassed all 
training and information provided to the softball team, which by definition includes 
January Term, 2018 
 
9
training and information provided to all incoming students—precisely what the 
university ultimately produced.  However, despite its failure to comply with 
Kesterson’s request within a reasonable period of time, Kent State’s eventual 
production of all the requested records has rendered her mandamus claim moot. 
Statutory Damages 
{¶ 21} R.C. 149.43(C)(1) imposes damages at the rate of $100 “for each 
business day during which the public office *  *  * failed to comply with an 
obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section, beginning with the day 
on which the requester files a mandamus action to recover statutory damages, up to 
a maximum of one thousand dollars.”2  The act provides that an award of statutory 
damages can be reduced if two conditions are satisfied.  State ex rel. Carr v. London 
Corr. Inst., 144 Ohio St.3d 211, 2015-Ohio-2363, 41 N.E.3d 1203, ¶ 41, citing R.C. 
149.43(C)(1).  A court may reduce or not award statutory damages if it determines 
that “based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law as it existed 
at the time,” the public office “reasonably would believe that the conduct or 
threatened conduct of the public office *  *  * did not constitute a failure to comply 
with an obligation” under R.C. 149.43(B) and that the public office “reasonably 
would believe that the conduct or threatened conduct *  *  * would serve the public 
policy that underlies the authority that is asserted as permitting that conduct or 
threatened conduct.”  R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(a) and (b).3   
{¶ 22} Kent State violated R.C. 149.43(B) when it did not produce all 
responsive records until November 9, 2016, more than six months after Kesterson 
filed her mandamus complaint on April 21, 2016, and therefore statutory damages 
are warranted.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392, 2015-
Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 46.  Also, neither condition of R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(a) or 
(b) is satisfied in this case.  Accordingly, because Kesterson has met the 
                                                 
2 This provision is now found in R.C. 149.43(C)(2) of the current Public Records Act. 
3 These provisions are found in R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b) of the current Public Records Act. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
requirements for statutory damages, to include a written request that “fairly 
describe[d]” the records she sought transmitted to Kent State by certified mail, R.C. 
149.43(C)(1), we award her statutory damages in the amount of $1,000. 
Court Costs 
{¶ 23} Kesterson is not, however, entitled to an award of court costs.  On 
the dates she made her public-records request and filed her mandamus complaint, 
the applicable version of the Public Records Act allowed for an award of court costs 
only “[i]f the court issues a writ of mandamus that orders the public office * * * to 
comply with division (B) of this section.”  R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a).  Accordingly, 
because we hold that Kesterson’s mandamus claim is moot, we deny her request 
for court costs. 
Attorney Fees 
{¶ 24} The plain and unambiguous language of the applicable version of 
R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b)(i) requires an award of reasonable attorney fees when the 
public office or person responsible for the public records failed to timely respond, 
pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B), to the public records request (“The court shall award 
reasonable attorney’s fees * * * when * * * [t]he public office or person responsible 
for the public records failed to respond affirmatively or negatively to the public 
records request in accordance with the time allowed under division (B)” [emphasis 
added]).  An award of attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b)(i) is not 
dependent upon the court having issued a judgment that orders compliance with the 
public-records law.  See also R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b)(i)4 (court may award attorney 
fees if the court renders a judgment that orders the public office to comply with 
R.C. 149.43(B) or if the court determines the public office failed to timely respond 
to the request).  The award of reasonable attorney fees is subject to reduction 
pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(c). 
                                                 
4 This reference is to the current Public Records Act, effective November 2, 2018.  This statutory 
amendment was originally adopted in 2016 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 321.   
January Term, 2018 
 
11 
{¶ 25} An award of reasonable attorney fees is appropriate under R.C. 
149.43(C)(2)(b)(i) because Kent State violated R.C. 149.43(B) when it failed to 
produce all responsive records until November 9, 2016, more than six months after 
Kesterson filed this action.  The court will make a final determination of the amount 
of attorney fees upon review of Kesterson’s filing of an itemized application with 
independent evidence supporting the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged and 
the hours billed.  The statutory guidelines in R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(c) will aid the court 
in determining the amount of fees to be awarded.  Kesterson must demonstrate that 
she is entitled to an award of fees that is “reasonable” and “remedial.”  Id.  
Specifically, the itemized billing statements should only reflect time spent on the 
public-records request, mandamus action, and the proof of entitlement to and 
reasonableness of the requested fees.  Id.  Kent State is entitled to respond to 
Kesterson’s application, and this court, applying R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(c), could 
reduce the attorney fees if it found that a “well-informed public office or person 
responsible for the requested public records reasonably” would believe the conduct 
“did not constitute a failure to comply” with a statutory obligation and that such 
conduct would “serve the public policy [underlying] the authority that [was] 
asserted as permitting that conduct.”  R.C. 149.43(c)(2)(C)(i) and (ii); see Sage, 
142 Ohio St.3d 392, 2015-Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, at ¶ 37. 
{¶ 26} Any person submitting an application for attorney fees should note 
that “fee applications submitted to this court should contain separate time entries 
for each task, with the time expended on each task denoted in tenths of an hour” 
and that “this court will no longer grant attorney-fee applications that include block-
billed time entries.”  State ex rel. Harris v. Rubino, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-
5109, ___N.E.3d ___, ¶ 7, 14. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 27} Kesterson has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Kent 
State has failed to fully respond to her February 2016 records request.  Therefore, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
she has not established her entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in 
mandamus, and we deny the writ.  We also deny her request for costs.  However, 
because Kent State failed to timely produce some of the responsive records, we 
award statutory damages to Kesterson under R.C. 149.43(C)(1) in the amount of 
$1,000, and grant her request for reasonable attorney fees. 
Judgment accordingly. 
FRENCH, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, and would deny the 
writ and award statutory damages, but would deny relator’s request for fees and 
costs. 
FISCHER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, and would deny the writ 
but would not award statutory damages, and would deny relator’s request for fees 
and costs. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would grant the writ and would grant relator’s 
request for fees and costs. 
_________________ 
The Chandra Law Firm L.L.C., Subodh Chandra, Ashlie Case Sletvold, and 
Marvin C. Brown IV, for relator. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jeffrey Knight and Sarah E. 
Pierce, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
_________________