[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-287.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -287 [T HE S TATE EX REL .] M C D OUGALD v. G REENE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-287.]
Mandamus—Public-records law—Public-record s custodian held in contempt for failing to meet obligations under R.C. 149.43 and existing peremptory writ of mandamus. (No. 2019-0562—Submitted January 28, 2020—Decided January 31, 2 020.)
I N M ANDAMUS

.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} On October 29, 2019, we issued an order to respondent, Larry Gr eene, the public-records custodian for the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to provide records under the terms of an existing pe remptory writ of mandamus. 15 7 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2019-Ohio-4419, 133 N.E.3d 543. Alternatively, we ordered Gree ne toS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 demonstrate that the records in question do not exist. Id . Greene has filed a response to the show-cause order, and in reply, relator, Jerone McDougald, has filed a motion to hold Greene in contempt of court. {¶ 2} For the reasons explained below, we hereby find Greene in conte mpt and impose a sanction of $1,000. Greene may purge the contempt by providing the incoming legal-mail log for February 27, 2019, to McDougald and this court no later than February 21, 2020. If the document is not provided by that date, then Greene will be subject to an add itional sanction of $100 per da y until such time as he complies with thi s court’s order. I. Background {¶ 3} In March 2019, when McDougald was an inmate at SOCF, he sent a public-records request to Greene. M cDougald requested (1) the legal-mail log for February 27, 2019, and (2) a copy of an envelope containing leg al mail from the
United States District Court of Ohio for the Southern District in Cincinnati. McDougald’s actual message contai ning the request is not in the record. However, Greene’s response is:

The answer I received from our mail room staff for the date you requested of February 27, 2019 for the Legal Mail Log is th at it
does not exist. I was also informed you were provided a copy of the envelope if one existed a nd the original is not kept.

{¶ 4} McDougald filed an original acti on for a writ of mandamus in th is court on April 23, 2019. Greene’s an swer contained the followi ng averments:

[Greene] checked with the mailroom staff at * * * SOCF to see i f [McDougald] sent any legal mail on February 27, 2019. AfterJanuary Term, 2020

3 multiple individuals checked, they ensured [Greene] that no suc h mailing was sent by [McDougald]. Furthermore, it is not the policy of [Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”)] to maintain the copies of the envelopes of legal mail sent from the institution. Instead, a copy is provided to inmates for their records. [McDougald] was informed on March 19, 2019 that no records responsive to his request exist , rendering the issue moot.

(Emphasis added.) {¶ 5} On August 20, 2019, we granted a peremptory writ of mandamus “ordering Greene to provide McDougald copies of the requested p ages of the legalmail log, if they exist .” (Emphasis added.) 157 Oh io St.3d 315, 2019-Ohio-3309, 136 N.E.3d 453, ¶ 5. We denied the writ as to McDougald’s reco rds request for the envelope because “it was clear that the institution does not ma intain the original envelopes enclosing incoming ma il” and thus no responsive docum ents existed. Id

. at ¶ 6. {¶ 6} Approximately one month after th is court granted the peremptory writ, McDougald filed a motion for default judgment, arguing th at Greene had failed to provide any documents i n compliance with our order. While we denied that motion, we also ordered Greene “to show cause within 14 da ys why he should not be held in contempt for failing to provide the records unde r the terms of the existing peremptory writ or produce evidence that they do not e xist.” 157 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2019-Ohio-4419, 133 N.E.3d 543. {¶ 7} Greene submitted a timely response to the show-cause order on November 4. With respect to the legal-mail log, Greene submitt ed his own affidavit, in which he attested as follows:S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4  He informed McDougald that no responsive records existed and th at McDougald did not have any entries on the legal-mail log for Fe bruary 27,
2019.

 Per ODRC policy, outgoing legal- mail logs are not maintained.

 Because McDougald had no entries on the legal-mail log for Febr uary 27, 2019, and no records beyond the legal-mail log are maintained b y ODRC documenting legal mail, no responsive records were in existence

. {¶ 8} On November 14, McDougald filed a reply, clarifying that he was seeking the incoming mail log, not any record of outgoing mail. At the same time, he filed a motion asking that Greene be held in contempt of cou rt for withholding the requested document. Gr eene did not respond to the motion. II. Analysis {¶ 9} The affidavit submitted by Greene in response to the show-cause order confirms that ODRC, SOCF, or both possess a document resp onsive to McDougald’s request and that Greene has failed to produce it. Specifically, Greene attests that SOCF does not maintain a log of outgoing mail but does keep a log of incoming mail. Greene explained that he did not produce the incoming l egal-mail log for February 27, 2019, because “McDougald did not have any entries on the legal mail log” for that date. But McDougald’s request (at lea st as described in the complaint) was not limited to entries for his own name; rather, he requested the “legal mail log for February 27, 2019,” with no limitation. {¶ 10} We hold that Greene has failed to meet his obligations under bo th Ohio’s Public Records Act—R.C. 149.43—and the peremptory writ o f mandamus issued by this court. We hereby find Greene in contempt and im pose a sanction of $1,000, which we stay to allow him the opportunity to purge the contempt in the
manner described above.January Term, 2020

5 III. Conclusion {¶ 11} We hold respondent in contempt of court, subject to purge by providing the incoming legal- mail log for February 27, 2019, to McDougald and this court no later than February 21, 2020.
So ordered.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Jerone McDougald, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jared S. Yee, Assistant Attorn ey General, for appellee.

_________________