Title: Strothers v. Norton

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Strothers v. Norton, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1007.] 
 
 
 
 
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-1007 
STROTHERS, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. NORTON, MAYOR, 
APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Strothers v. Norton, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1007.] 
Public records—Portion of court of appeals’ judgment denying writ of mandamus 
affirmed—Portion of judgment awarding statutory damages reversed. 
(No. 2011-1483—Submitted March 7, 2012—Decided March 15, 2012.) 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 96147, 2011-Ohio-3694. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying the request of appellant 
and cross-appellee, Gerald O. Strothers Jr., for a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellee and cross-appellant, East Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton Jr., to provide 
access to review, inspect, and copy at cost various records.  Norton  cross-appeals 
from that portion of the judgment awarding Strothers $1,000 in statutory damages 
on his public-records mandamus claim. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} We affirm the portion of the judgment denying the writ of 
mandamus and reverse the portion awarding statutory damages. 
Facts 
{¶ 3} By certified letter dated December 1, 2010, Strothers requested 
that Norton allow him “to review, inspect and or copy [certain] public records 
pertaining to East Cleveland Ohio from (2009 to present)” relating to the East 
Cleveland jail.  These records included (1) copies of the contracts to provide 
food/catering and laundry service for jail prisoners, (2) all financial records that 
contain data about the jail—including “all payments made and received, amounts 
paid to outside contractors, bid requests, proposals and resumes of any winning 
and non-winning bidder(s),” (3) documents related to all purchases of jail 
bedding, pads, and sheets, (4) requests for “bids of jail plumbing problems 
including the many non-working sinks and toilets in the facility, this may include 
repairs made by in-house custodians; all plumbing invoices,” (5) “Certification to 
provide medical care, dispense medications by jail personnel or written 
authorization allowing non-medical personnel, correctional officers to dispense 
prescription medications,” (6) “Extermination Contracts or requests for 
extermination services made by jail personnel and prisoners, including the plan to 
address rat, mice, and insect infestation at the jail facility; all service calls from 
outside professional and nonprofessional exterminators,” (7) “Jail policy 
pertaining to prisoners’ use of telephones, showers, and being able to step out of 
their cells for exercise and recreation, or letter directing jail personnel to keep 
prisoners caged up without release,” (8) inspection reports from the state and 
Cuyahoga County offices tasked with monitoring jail facilities, and (9) “Written 
jail policies pertaining to prisoner treatment, phone calls, medical attention, and 
discipline including incidents where prisoners were stunned with electronic non-
lethal weapons and physically restrained using chains or handcuffs.” 
{¶ 4} In his request, Strothers acknowledged the breadth of his request: 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
 
 
I realize that this is a large request for documents but it is 
my intention to review the requested records within a reasonable 
amount of time and perhaps help our fair city avoid any future 
mistreatment of prisoners in the city jail facility. 
 
{¶ 5} The certified-mail receipt indicates that the request was received 
on behalf of the mayor on December 2, 2010.  Strothers reiterated his request at 
the December 7, 2010 regular meeting of the East Cleveland City Council. 
{¶ 6} On December 9, 2010, only a week after Strothers’s public-records 
request was received by Norton, Strothers filed a petition in the Eighth District 
Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel Norton to provide access to 
the requested records. 
{¶ 7} On December 21, Norton, through Brenda L. Blanks, the executive 
assistant to the East Cleveland law director, provided copies of some of the 
requested records to Strothers.  On that same day, Strothers submitted a written 
request for records pertaining to the city’s traffic cameras, including the revenue 
generated by each of them. 
{¶ 8} On January 13, 18, and 25, Norton provided Strothers with access 
to the remaining records listed in his initial request.  Some of these records were 
sent to Strothers via certified mail, but they were returned because Strothers did 
not sign for them.  In a subsequent telephone conversation, Strothers advised 
Blanks that he never requested that she send him copies of the records and that he 
wanted instead to come to the office to review the records and scan the ones he 
wanted into his personal computer.  Blanks told Strothers that he could make an 
appointment during regular business hours to review the records, but Strothers did 
not make an appointment to do so. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} After Norton filed a response to Strothers’s mandamus petition and 
Strothers filed a motion for summary judgment, the court of appeals ordered the 
parties to file an inventory listing the records that had been requested and those 
that had been made available.  Attached to Norton’s inventory was the 
uncontroverted affidavit of Blanks specifying that all of the requested records had 
been made available to Strothers. 
{¶ 10} The court of appeals denied the writ of mandamus, but awarded 
Strothers $1,000 in statutory damages. 
{¶ 11} This cause is now before the court upon Strothers’s appeal and 
Norton’s cross-appeal. 
Analysis 
Appeal 
{¶ 12} In his appeal, Strothers asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
denying the requested writ of mandamus.  Strothers claims that the court of 
appeals committed error by ruling that 45 days was a reasonable amount of time 
for the mayor to take to make records available and that a request for public 
records must be made by affidavit.  But the court of appeals did not so hold. 
{¶ 13} Instead, the court of appeals correctly held that Norton’s evidence, 
which included the uncontroverted affidavit of Blanks and attached exhibits, 
established that Strothers had been given access to all of the requested records, 
which rendered his mandamus claim moot.  See State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 
Ohio St.3d 168, 2011-Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 22, quoting State ex rel. 
Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537, 2009-
Ohio-1767, 905 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 14 (“ ‘In general, providing the requested records 
to the relator in a public-records mandamus case renders the mandamus claim 
moot’ ”).  Strothers did not submit the requisite clear and convincing proof to the 
contrary.  See State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
958 N.E.2d 1235, paragraph three of the syllabus (“Relators in mandamus cases 
must prove their entitlement to the writ by clear and convincing evidence”). 
{¶ 14} Nor did the court of appeals abuse its discretion in refusing to 
consider Strothers’s claim for records concerning the city’s traffic camera.  
Strothers claims that the court refused to consider that claim because his request 
was not made in an affidavit.  Actually, the court held that it would not consider 
that claim because Strothers had not included it in his mandamus petition.  “R.C. 
149.43 requires a prior request as a prerequisite to a mandamus action.”  State ex 
rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood, 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 390, 715 N.E.2d 179 
(1999).  Strothers did not submit his request for the traffic-camera records before 
he filed his mandamus petition, and he did not thereafter seek leave to amend his 
petition to include the claim.  In fact, even in this appeal, Strothers attempts to 
include a claim related to yet another request for public records.  Yet this request, 
which did not precede the filing of his mandamus petition, was likewise not 
included in his petition or in a motion to amend it.  This claim was not even raised 
in the court of appeals.  State ex rel. DeGroot v. Tilsley, 128 Ohio St.3d 311, 
2011-Ohio-231, 943 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 9 (appellant in mandamus case waived claim 
that she had failed to raise in the court of appeals). 
{¶ 15} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying 
the writ of mandamus. 
Cross-Appeal 
{¶ 16} In his cross-appeal, Norton asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
awarding Strothers $1,000 in statutory damages.  Norton first claims that 
Strothers lacked standing to institute his mandamus action and receive an award 
of statutory damages because he is not an aggrieved party for purposes of R.C. 
149.43(C) since his request for public records was “merely a pretext to obtain 
statutory damages.” 
{¶ 17} R.C. 149.43(C)(1) provides: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
 
 
If a person allegedly is aggrieved by the failure of a public 
office or the person responsible for public records to promptly 
prepare a public record and to make it available to the person for 
inspection in accordance with division (B) of this section or by any 
other failure of a public office or the person responsible for public 
records to comply with an obligation in accordance with division 
(B) of this section, the person allegedly aggrieved may commence 
a mandamus action to obtain a judgment that orders the public 
office or the person responsible for the public record to comply 
with division (B) of this section, that awards court costs and 
reasonable attorney’s fees to the person that instituted the 
mandamus action, and, if applicable, that includes an order fixing 
statutory damages under division (C)(1) of this section. 
 
{¶ 18} Norton waived this claim because he did not raise it in the court of 
appeals.  See State ex rel. Hawthorn v. Russell, 107 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005-Ohio-
6431, 838 N.E.2d 666, ¶ 8 (appellants waived legal-capacity issue by failing to 
raise objection in the court of appeals). 
{¶ 19} Moreover, as we recently emphasized in Rhodes v. New 
Philadelphia, 129 Ohio St.3d 304, 2011-Ohio-3279, 951 N.E.2d 782, at ¶ 21: 
 
 
The broad language used in R.C. 149.43 manifests the 
General Assembly’s intent to jealously protect the right of the 
people to access public records.  We are acutely aware of the 
importance of the right provided by the act and the vulnerability of 
that right when the records are in the hands of public officials who 
are reluctant to release them.  For this reason, we stress that public 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
offices are obligated to honor public-record requests regardless of 
the requester’s reasons for or objectives in requesting the records.  
Allowing the genuineness of a person’s request to be within the 
purview of the public office would invite recalcitrance and would 
not promote the purpose of the act. 
 
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 20} Therefore, Strothers’s possible motive in requesting the public 
records did not divest him of standing to sue under R.C. 149.43(C)(1). 
{¶ 21} Nevertheless, we hold that Norton’s claim that the court of appeals 
abused its discretion in granting statutory damages to Strothers has merit.  An 
award of statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(1) is premised on a violation of 
R.C. 149.43(B).  Under R.C. 149.43(B)(1), two primary means are specified for 
providing access to public records:  “(1) making the records ‘available for 
inspection to any person at all reasonable times during regular business  hours’ 
and (2) making ‘copies of the requested public record[s] available at cost and 
within a reasonable period of time.’ ”  State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes, 129 Ohio 
St.3d 182, 2011-Ohio-3093, 950 N.E.2d 965, ¶ 15, quoting R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  
Whether a public office or a person responsible for public records can be deemed 
to have complied with these duties is dependent upon the facts and circumstances 
involved.  See State ex rel. Wadd v. Cleveland, 81 Ohio St.3d 50, 53, 689 N.E.2d 
25 (1998). 
{¶ 22} The pertinent facts here include: (1) Strothers’s December 2010 
request for myriad records relating to the East Cleveland jail, (2) Strothers 
admitted that his request constituted a “large request for documents,” (3) Strothers 
filed his mandamus action a mere week after Norton received his request, (4) 
Strothers requested other records during the period in which Norton was 
attempting to respond to his first request, (5) Norton provided access to all of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
records related to the initial request by January 25, 2011, and (6) Strothers 
declined to accept delivery of some of the requested records and failed to contact 
the city to set an appropriate time to review the records. 
{¶ 23} Under these circumstances, we agree with the judge of the court of 
appeals who dissented from the statutory-damages portion of the judgment: 
Norton produced the records within a reasonable period of time.  2011-Ohio-
3694, at ¶ 22-25 (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
{¶ 24} Therefore, we reverse that portion of the judgment granting $1,000 
in statutory damages to Strothers. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 25} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the portion of the judgment of 
the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus and reverse the portion 
awarding statutory damages. 
Judgment affirmed in part 
and reversed in part. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Gerald O. Strothers Jr., pro se. 
 
Ronald K. Riley, East Cleveland Director of Law, for appellee and cross-
appellant. 
______________________