[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4201.] 

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. 2019-OHIO-4201 

THE STATE EX REL. ELLIS, APPELLANT, v. CLEVELAND POLICE FORENSIC 

LABORATORY, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, 

Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4201.] 

Mandamus—Public records—R.C. 149.43(B)(8)—The custodian of a public record 

has no clear legal duty to produce a record requested by an incarcerated 

person who failed to request a finding that the record is necessary to 

support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the incarcerated person—

Denial of writ affirmed but cause remanded for resolution of a motion for 

statutory damages. 

(No. 2019-0398—Submitted July 9, 2019—Decided October 16, 2019.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 107571, 

2019-Ohio-710. 

__________________ 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, L’Ddaryl Ellis, a prison inmate, filed an action in the Eighth 

District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Cleveland 

Police Forensic Laboratory (“CPFL”), to provide public records he had requested. 

The court of appeals granted the writ concerning certain records but denied the writ 

concerning others. Ellis has appealed to this court as a matter of right. We affirm. 

Background 

{¶ 2} In June 2018, Ellis requested the following records from CPFL: 

(1) All Investigative Reports, All Laboratory or Hospital 

Reports, books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible object, 

buildings, or places, All Scientific Tests, any memorandum, memo 

notes, emails etc . . . (Police, Detective, Witness and Victim 

Statements & Reports. Ballistic Test of the following weapon: Skyy 

9mm caliber pistol, Model CPX-1, with serial #018313. 

(2) Copies of all Records Retention Schedule, Records 

Retention Policy, and Public Records Policy. 

The request also referred to “Lab Report No. 2012-001569.” 

{¶ 3} In August 2018, Ellis filed a mandamus action in the Eighth District 

alleging that CPFL had not responded to his request. In addition to seeking an order 

compelling CPFL to provide the requested records, Ellis sought statutory damages 

under R.C. 149.43(C)(2). 

{¶ 4} CPFL moved for summary judgment. In his response to CPFL’s 

motion, Ellis disclosed that CPFL had provided a copy of the lab report, but he argued 

that CPFL still had not fully responded to his request. Among other things, he noted 

that CPFL had not given him a copy of a records-retention schedule, recordsretention policy, or public-records policy. 
January Term, 2019 

3 

{¶ 5} The court of appeals determined that the first part of Ellis’s request was 

extremely vague and overly broad and that Ellis had not obtained court approval 

before requesting public records concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution, 

as he was required to do under R.C. 149.43(B)(8). The court therefore denied the 

writ as to the first part of Ellis’s request. But the court noted that R.C. 149.43(B)(8) 

did not apply to the second part of Ellis’s request, which did not seek records 

concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution. Because CPFL had not 

responded to that part of the request, either by producing the documents or by 

showing that no responsive documents exist, the court granted the writ in part. 

{¶ 6} In response to the court’s order, CPFL provided a records-retention 

schedule, a records-retention policy, and a public-records policy to Ellis. At the 

court of appeals’ invitation, Ellis filed a motion for statutory damages based on 

CPFL’s failure to timely produce those records. Because the court of appeals had 

determined under Civ.R. 54(B) that there was no just reason for delay, Ellis 

appealed to this court while his statutory-damages motion remained pending. 

Analysis 

{¶ 7} Ellis challenges the court of appeals’ determination that he was 

required, under R.C. 149.43(B)(8), to obtain court approval before requesting 

records concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution. There is some 

indication in the record that this claim may be moot, because Ellis acknowledged that 

CPFL gave him a copy of the report he requested and it is unclear that additional 

responsive records exist. See 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”). CPFL, however, did not file 

a brief in this appeal, never argued that Ellis’s claim is moot, and presented no 

evidence verifying that it has provided all responsive documents. Thus, in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

absence of a record clearly demonstrating mootness, we will address the merit of 

Ellis’s appeal. 

{¶ 8} R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides: 

A public office or person responsible for public records is 

not required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a 

criminal conviction * * * to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public 

record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution * * *, 

unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for 

the purpose of acquiring information that is subject to release as a 

public record under this section and the judge who imposed the 

sentence or made the adjudication with respect to the person, or the 

judge’s successor in office, finds that the information sought in the 

public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable 

claim of the person. 

{¶ 9} “The language of the statute is broad and encompassing” and “clearly 

sets forth heightened requirements for inmates seeking public records.” (Emphasis 

sic.) State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 

N.E.2d 966, ¶ 14 (involving former R.C. 149.43(B)(4), now R.C. 149.43(B)(8)). 

Because Ellis does not dispute that the first part of his request sought public records 

concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) plainly 

applied. 

{¶ 10} But, relying on State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus, 151 Ohio St.3d 425, 

2016-Ohio-8394, 89 N.E.3d 598, ¶ 38, Ellis argues that Crim.R. 16(H)—not R.C. 

149.43(B)(8)—governed his request. Crim.R. 16(H) provides that “[a] public 

records request made by the defendant, directly or indirectly, shall be treated as a 
January Term, 2019 

5 

demand for discovery in a criminal case if, and only if, the request is made to an 

agency involved in the prosecution or investigation of that case.” 

{¶ 11} Ellis misapprehends both Caster and Crim.R. 16(H). The issue in 

Caster was whether the specific-investigatory-work-product exception (R.C. 

149.43(A)(2)(c)) applies after an underlying criminal case has concluded. Caster at 

¶ 1. Caster did not involve the obligation of an incarcerated person to comply with 

R.C. 149.43(B)(8). And contrary to what Ellis suggests, Crim.R. 16(H) does not 

provide an independent basis for accessing public records. It merely explains how a 

request for public records may affect a defendant’s discovery obligations in a 

criminal case. 

{¶ 12} Ellis, therefore, had to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Because he 

did not obtain court approval as the statute requires, CPFL had no clear legal duty to 

produce the records identified in the first part of his request. We therefore affirm the 

judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause for resolution of Ellis’s 

pending motion for statutory damages. 

Judgment affirmed 

and cause remanded. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 

and STEWART, JJ., concur. 

________________________ 

L’Ddaryl Ellis, pro se. 

________________________