Title: Norris v. Budgake

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Norris v. Budgake, 89 Ohio St.3d 208, 2000-Ohio-137.] 
 
NORRIS, APPELLANT, v.  BUDGAKE, DIR., APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Norris v. Budgake (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 208.] 
Public records — Mandamus sought to compel director of county crime 
laboratory to provide relator access to requested records — Court of 
appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 00-323 — Submitted April 25, 2000 — Decided June 21, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 1999CA00359. 
 
In October 1999, appellant, Robert Lee Norris, an inmate at North Central 
Correctional Institution, requested that appellee, Robert Budgake, Director of the 
Canton-Stark County Crime Laboratory, provide him with access to the following 
records:  (1) a complete certification of laboratory test capability from October 
1992 through July 1993, (2) a written certification of the presence or absence of an 
“in laboratory” electrophoresis test capability within those dates, and (3) the 
identity, address, and telephone number of the state, county, city, or federal agency 
to which the laboratory scientific test capability is certified.  Budgake refused 
Norris’s request because he did not have any of the records demanded. 
 
Norris then filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Stark County for a 
writ of mandamus to compel Budgake to provide access to the requested records 
under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.  Budgake moved for summary 
judgment and supported the motion with his affidavit specifying that none of the 
 
 
2
requested records existed.  Norris failed to file any summary judgment evidence to 
controvert Budgake’s affidavit.  The court of appeals granted Budgake’s motion 
and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Robert Lee Norris, pro se. 
 
Mariella Mestel, Canton Assistant Law Director, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  Budgake’s 
uncontroverted summary judgment evidence established that the records that 
Norris requested did not exist.  Budgake had no duty to create new documents to 
satisfy Norris’s request.  State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 86 
Ohio St.3d 385, 389-390, 715 N.E.2d 179, 183; State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 153, 154, 707 N.E.2d 496, 497.  And Norris failed to 
respond by affidavit or as otherwise provided by Civ.R. 56 to set forth specific 
facts showing the existence of a genuine triable issue that would have precluded 
summary judgment.  See Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 
667 N.E.2d 1197, 1199; Civ.R. 56(E).  Therefore, Norris was not entitled to the 
writ. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
3
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.