[Cite as State ex rel. Conley v. Park, 2016-Ohio-5199.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE EX REL. CRAIG T. CONLEY 

 Relator 

-vsDIXIE N. PARK, JUDGE AND CLERK 

STARK COUNTY COURT OF 

COMMON PLEAS, PROBATE 

DIVISION 

 Respondent 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2014CA00169 

: 

: 

: O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Mandamus Public Records 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 1, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Relator For Respondent 

CRAIG T. CONLEY JOHN FERRERO 

220 MARKET AVENUE SOUTH BY ROSS RHODES 

SUITE 604 110 CENTRAL PLAZA S., STE. 510 

CANTON, OH 44702 CANTON, OH 44702 
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00169 2 

Gwin, P.J. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 

{¶1} This cause came before this Court upon a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus 

based upon Respondent’s alleged failure to supply records pursuant to a public records 

request as required under the Rules of Superintendence. Upon review of the Complaint 

filed in this case, we issued a peremptory writ ordering Respondent to respond to a public 

records request. 

{¶2} Respondent appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed 

this Court holding, “The court of appeals acted prematurely by issuing a writ ordering 

Judge Park to produce the requested documents before she had a chance to explain the 

reasoning behind her refusal to treat the faxed letter as a public-records request.” State 

ex rel. Conley v. Park, 2015-Ohio-5226, ¶ 10 (Ohio).1 

{¶3} Upon remand, Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may granted. Both parties have filed motions for summary 

judgment. 

FACTS: 

September 4, 2014 

{¶4} On September 4, 2014, Relator faxed a public records request to 

Respondent requesting copies of narrative reports from Dr. Robert Devies. According to 

the court’s docket, the narrative reports were listed as attachments to Dr. Devies’ Expert 

Evaluations filed on July 30, 2014 and August 6, 2014. In his public records request, 

 

1

 Respondent denies failing to treat the faxed request as a public records request. She maintains that her letter, 

enclosing the faxed request and advising Relator that faxed filings were not accepted without prior approval, was 

not a denial of the request. 
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00169 3 

Relator explained that he had gone to the public computer terminals in the probate court 

but was unable to access narrative reports which were referenced on the court’s docket. 

{¶5} Upon receipt of the fax, Respondent sent Relator a letter that same day 

wherein she returned Relator’s request and indicated faxed filings were not permitted 

without prior court approval. 

September 9, 2014 

{¶6} Relator faxed a letter to Respondent stating, “I take your letter and attendant 

return of my public records request to be a refusal to comply with Sup R 45(B)(1) and 

therefore will very promptly avail myself of the remedy set forth in Sup R 47(B).” 

{¶7} Respondent sent a second letter reiterating the fax filing prohibition but also 

advising Relator that the requested records were available for viewing at the court’s public 

computer terminals. The letter also advised Relator that the file was available at the court 

for his review. Finally, the letter informed Relator that a portion of the records sought 

were not available because “facsimile transmission cover pages/letters are not docketed.” 

{¶8} Respondent’s letter appears to have been mailed. There is no indication 

the letter was faxed to Relator. 

September 10, 2014 

{¶9} Relator filed the instant “Verified Complaint for Writ of Mandamus.” 

According to a letter sent to the Stark County Prosecutor who is counsel for Respondent, 

Relator acknowledged receipt of Respondent’s September 9, 2014 letter only after he 

had already filed the Complaint for Writ of Mandamus. 
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00169 4 

September 23, 2014

{¶10} This Court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring Respondent to 

respond to the public records request. 

September 25, 2014

{¶11} Respondent mailed copies of the documents requested and repeated her 

explanation as to the nonexistence of the fax cover sheets. 

I. 

{¶12} Respondent urges this Court to dismiss the complaint based upon 

mootness as the records were made available via the September 9, 2014 letter. Relator 

argues an exception to the mootness doctrine exists because the circumstances 

presented herein are capable of repetition. 

{¶13} Relator also argues not all of the records requested have been provided 

because Respondent has not provided requested copies of fax cover sheets. Therefore, 

it is Relator’s position that Respondent has not fully complied with the public records 

request. Further, Relator maintains Respondent unlawfully destroyed records namely the 

fax cover sheets. 

Fax Cover Sheets 

{¶14} We find the fax cover sheets are not public records once they have been 

destroyed in the normal course of business. 

{¶15} Superintendence Rule 26.01(E) provides, “Correspondence and general 

office records: Correspondence and general office records, including all sent and 

received correspondence, in any medium, may be destroyed in the normal course of 
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00169 5 

business as soon as they are considered to be of no value by the person holding the 

records.” 

{¶16} According to her affidavit, Respondent does not retain fax cover sheets. We 

find Respondent’s destruction of the fax cover sheets complies with Sup.R. 26.01(E). 

Because they are not retained, they no longer exist. Respondent has “no duty to create 

or provide access to nonexistent records.” State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 

527, 2007-Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530, ¶ 15. 

Mootness

{¶17} “The law provides that a respondent meets its burden of proving that a 

public records claim is moot by providing an affidavit that the requested public records 

have been provided. State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo–Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 

Ohio St.3d at 540, 905 N.E.2d 1221.” State ex rel. Strothers v. Keenon, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 103313, 2016-Ohio-405, ¶ 40. 

{¶18} Respondent has filed an affidavit stating all requested records in her 

possession have been provided to Relator. 

{¶19} As to whether this case presents circumstances which qualify under the 

exception to mootness, “This exception applies only in exceptional circumstances in 

which the following two factors are both present: (1) the challenged action is too short in 

duration to be fully litigated before its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable 

expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” 

(Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 229, 

231, 729 N.E.2d 1182.” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ronan, 124 Ohio St.3d 17, 

18, 2009-Ohio-5947, 918 N.E.2d 515, 516-17, ¶ 5 (2009). 
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00169 6 

{¶20} In support of his contention that an exception to mootness exists, Relator 

points out this is the second complaint regarding public records he has filed against 

Respondent. The first action was voluntarily dismissed by Relator after the requested 

records were supplied. 

{¶21} We do not find the exception to mootness applies based upon one prior 

filing of a complaint. In both instances, Respondent did provide the requested records. 

{¶22} Because the requested records have been provided and because no 

exception to mootness exists, we dismiss the complaint on the basis of mootness. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Farmer, J., and 

Delaney, J., concur