[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Hedenberg v. N. Cent. Corr. Complex , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3815.]

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 -3815
T HE S TATE EX REL
. H EDENBERG , v . N ORTH C ENTRAL C ORRECTIONAL C OMPLEX ET AL
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it

may be cited as State ex rel. Hedenberg v. N. Cent. Corr. Complex , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3815.]
Public records—R.C. 149.43—Mandamu s—Statutory damages—Writ of
mandamus will not issue when uncont roverted evidence shows requested documents do not exist—Use of prison kite to request public records does not qualify requester for award of statutory damages—Writ of mandamus and request for statutory damages denied. (No. 2018-1117—Submitted January 7, 2020—Decided July 28, 2020. )
I N M ANDAMUS

.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Relator, Jonathan Hedenberg, seek s a writ of mandamus to compel the production of public records. We deny the writ because the evidence establishesS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 that respondents, the North Centr al Correctional Complex, Warde n Neil Turner, Deputy Warden Becky Joyce, “Mr. Potter,” “Mr. Minchaka,” and “M anagement Training Corp.,” 1 (“NCCC”), do not possess documents responsive to Hedenberg’s public-records requests. In addition, we deny Hedenberg’s requ est for an award of statutory damages and court costs. I. Background {¶ 2} Hedenberg was an inmate at NCCC at the time that he filed his p ublicrecords requests. 2 On March 21, 2018, he sent a public-records request to Joyce for “records, sign up sheets, for the word processors and lexis nexis from a time period of Nov. 12th, 2015 to Feb. 8th, 2016.” Just over a week later, he made a second request for the sign-up s heets, this time addressed to T urner. {¶ 3} On May 9, 2018, Hedenberg sent a request to Potter, again reque sting the word-processor and LexisNexis sign-up sheets. And on that same date, he also sent a request to Mr. Minchaka i n the “I.T.” department. In th e request to Minchaka, in addition to asking for the sign-up sheets, Hedenbe rg requested “any logs, e-mails, maintenance requests, or other related documents , that pertain to the printer/copiers contained in the Special Services Building” tha t had been created in late January or February 2016, in cluding “any document that may show when the printers broke.” {¶ 4} In August 2018, Hedenberg filed his complaint for a writ of mandamus. He alleged that “Ms. McKenna,” a former NCCC librari an, had given him a copy of a Ricoh work order, but that he had not been prov ided any other documents he sought. In addition to NCCC, his complaint named as a respondent Attorney General Mike DeWine. We granted the Attorney General’ s motion to

1. Management and Training Corporation is a private company th at operates NCCC.
2. Hedenberg has since been transferred to another institution

.January Term, 2020

3 dismiss, dismissed him as a respondent, and sua sponte granted an alternative writ and set a briefing schedule. {¶ 5} Pursuant to that order, the par ties filed evidence and Hedenber g filed a merit brief with a supplement titled “Declaratory Statement u nder 28 U.S.C. 1746.” When NCCC filed its brief, it captioned it as both a me rit brief and a motion
to dismiss. We denied NCCC’s motion to dismiss and ordered NCC C to provide
to this court under seal “the doc uments requested by relator in his complaint.” {¶ 6} In response, NCCC filed an affidavit from Robyn Boden, the fina nce manager at NCCC, in which Boden attests that NCCC does not have documents responsive to Hedenberg’s requests. Hedenberg did not respond to that filing, nor did he file a reply brief. II. Analysis {¶ 7} Mandamus is the appropriate reme dy by which to compel complianc e with Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees , 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6. However, a writ of mandamu s will not issue
when the uncontroverted evidence shows that the requested docum ents do not exist.
State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith , 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530, ¶ 15. {¶ 8} In its initial evidentiary filing, NCCC submitted an affidavit from
Turner in which he attests that “NCCC does not save or maintain sign-in sheets for word processor use available for inmates in the NCCC library or Lexis sign-up sheets in the NCCC library.” He further attests that “[i]nmate s may have been requested to sign in before using the word processors and Lexis to establish the order of inmate usage, however, any such sign-in sheets were di scarded and not
saved or maintained.” In conclu sion, Turner attests that “no r equested sign in sheets were retained. NCCC does not have in its possession the record s requested by Relator, and therefore, cannot produce any.”S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 9} To refute Turner’s claims, Hedenberg submitted as part of his m erit brief a document that he titled “Declaratory Statement Under 28 U.S.C. 1746.” Hedenberg purported to sign the document under penalty of perju ry, but the document is not notarized. NCCC argues that Hedenberg’s unswor n declaration is
invalid and should not be considered as substantive evidence. We need not address this contention, however, because even if we were to consider H edenberg’s unsworn declaration as evidence, it fails to refute Turner’s ev idence that the LexisNexis sign-up sheets do not exist. In the declaration tha t Hedenberg filed as part of his brief, Hedenberg asserts that the NCCC library “is still maintaining a complete copy of 2017 logs” for LexisNexis sign-ups. But his r equests had sought records from 2015 and 2016, so this assertion does not further his claim. With respect to the older records, Hedenberg states that “Ms. Weidne r,” who he describes as a former librarian at NCCC, maintained several years of Lexi sNexis sign-up sheets. Hedenberg also states that

[u]pon Ms. McKenna’s termination of employment, Mr. Cedar and Mr. Smith took guardianship of the NCCI library, and removed documents from the library and office, either storing or disposing of
these documents . Any documents they stored were alleged to be stored in a storage space off the library. The documents I see k in my complaint were part of the above described documents in question.

(Emphasis added.) Hedenberg con cedes that Potter had searched the storage areas and did not find the documents. Thus, Hedenberg offers little evidence that the
documents still exist. {¶ 10} Hedenberg also requested “any lo gs, e-mails, maintenance reques ts, or other related documents, that pertain to the printer/copiers contained in theJanuary Term, 2020

5 Special Services Building” that had been created in late-Januar y or February 2016, including “any document that may show when the printers broke.” But Boden attests in her affidavit that “NCCC does not have any service r ecords and/or work orders for the subject Ricoh printer for the time period refere nced.” According to Boden, when service is required, NCCC makes a service request b y telephone and
maintains no records of such requests. {¶ 11} Hedenberg did not respond to the Boden affidavit. And his declaration sheds little light on whether the printer-maintenan ce records he seeks
exist. He states that

(vi) The Ricoh copier is serviced by an external contractor, a Ricoh Store, and there have been two separate contractors whi le
the Relator was housed at NCCI. I have already been provided a copy of the Ricoh Stores workorder, but it does not help to identify the date of the Ric oh’s breakdown; it provides the date t he Ricoh workorder was created and an estimated date of completion described on the form as th e date of the c ompletion.

Nothing in Hedenberg’s declaration supports his contention that additional documents remain to be produced, or that a document exists that shows “the date
of the Ricoh’s breakdown.” {¶ 12} For these reasons, Hedenberg’s evidence that NCCC has documents responsive to his requests is unpersuasive. We therefore deny his request for a writ
of mandamus. {¶ 13} In his complaint, Hedenberg requested an award of statutory damages and court costs. Court costs may be awarded in a publi c-records case in two circumstances. First, an award of court costs is mandatory when the courtS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 grants a writ of mandamus compelling a public office to comply with its duties
under the Public Records Act. R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i). Second , court costs shall be awarded when the court determines that the public office “ac ted in bad faith when [it] made the public records available to the relator for the first time after the
relator commenced the mandamus action, but before the court iss ued any order concluding whether or not” to grant a writ of mandamus. See R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(ii) and (iii). Ne ither scenario applies to the facts of this case, and therefore Hedenberg is not en titled to an award o f court costs. {¶ 14} Nor is Hedenberg eligible for an award of statutory damages. Statutory damages are availabl e only if Hedenberg proves by cle ar and convincing evidence that he had delivered his request “by hand delivery, e lectronic submission, or certified mail.” R.C. 149.43(C)(2); State ex rel. Martin v. Greene , 156 Ohio St.3d 482, 2019-Ohio-1827, 129 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 9. Hedenberg conc edes that he delivered his requests through the prison “kite” system. “A ‘k ite’ is written by an inmate to a member of the prison staff and is ‘a means for inma tes to contact staff members inside [an] institution.’ ” Greene at ¶ 3, fn. 1, quoting State v. Elmore , 5th Dist. Richland No. 16CA52, 2017-Ohio-1472, ¶ 15. The use o f a prison kite to request public records does not qualify the requester for an aw ard of statutory damages. State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio3686, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 18. {¶ 15} For these reasons, we deny Hedenberg’s request for a writ of mandamus and deny his r equest for an award of statutory damages and court costs.

Writ denied.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , and S TEWART , JJ.,

concur. D ONNELLY , J., concurs in judgment only.
K ENNEDY , J., concurs in part and dissent s in part, with an opinion.January Term, 2020

7 _________________ K

ENNEDY , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. {¶ 16} I concur in the majority’s judgment denying a writ of mandamus regarding one of the public-records requests filed by relator, Jonathan Hedenberg, namely the request for word-pro cessor and LexisNexis sign-up sh eets from respondents North Central Correc tional Complex, certain of its officials, and the private company that operates the complex (“NCCC”). I dissent, however, from the majority’s judgment regarding Hedenberg’s request for recor ds concerning a printer at the facility that had been out of service. Hedenber g’s first documented request for informati on about the printer was dated March 21, 2 018. It was not until NCCC filed an affidavit on October 1, 2019, in response t o this court’s order to submit to it any responsive documents for in camera review, that NCCC informed Hedenberg that no responsive documents existed. For o ver 18 months, NCCC led Hedenberg—and at times, this court—to believe that NCC C had responsive documents but that NCCC had no duty to produce them for Hedenberg. Because of its delay and shifting excuses regarding the records relating to the printer in question, NCCC failed to meet its responsibilities under R.C. 149.43(B),
and I would therefore award H edenberg statutory damages. {¶ 17} Hedenberg first requested infor mation about the printer from De puty Warden Becky Joyce on March 21, 2018: “[O]n or around Feb. 8th the printer/copier broke in the library. I need to know if there i s any email or record,
other than the work order that can demonstrate exactly when it broke.” NCCC’s response to Hedenberg’s request came on March 27, 2018, when Jo yce wrote to Hedenberg, “I am not permitted to pull the records.” {¶ 18} On March 30, 2018, Hedenberg sent a request to Warden Neil Turn er again asking for the records:S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 On or about Feb. 8th of 2016 the library printer/copier broke. I know it broke some time before Feb. 8 but, the Ricoh work ord er I have was requested Feb 8th. I also know it was repaired Feb. 9th. Could you please look through the email from this time and atte mpt to find out the specific day it broke. I need this for the cou rt because the printer breaking cause d me to be late in filing.
* * * P.S. Dept. W. Joyce stated she is unable to “pull the records, ”
hence this letter.

Turner responded, “We are unable to provide you with the inform ation requested.” {¶ 19} On May 9, 2018, Hedenberg sent a request to Mr. Minchaka in the “I.T.” department. He wrote,

[T]he documents I seek are from February of 2016 or late Januar y. The printer in the law library and another in special services was out of service at this time. I need any document that may show whe n the printers broke. I know the library computer was serviced F eb 8th, I have a copy of the Ricoh work order.

{¶ 20} Minchaka responded that Hedenbe rg needed to seek assistance fro m Hedenberg’s unit staff. {¶ 21} Hedenberg filed the present manda mus action in this court on August 7, 2018. None of the name d respondents a ffiliated with NCCC filed an answer. After some delay that was not the fault of the parties , this court granted an alternative writ on April 26, 2019. NCCC filed a merit brief a nd motion to dismiss on June 21, 2019. In support of NCCC’s argument that this cour t should deny the writ, NCCC submitted an affidavit from Turner in which he state d, “RelatorJanuary Term, 2020

9 requested work orders and related communications for the NCCC p rinters and copiers. For security reasons, NCCC does not provide work orde rs and related documents to inmates or the public that are classified as infra structure records or that relate to the computer systems at NCCC.” {¶ 22} NCCC argues in its merit brief that any records regarding the b roken printer are infrastructure r ecords under R.C. 149.433 and are t herefore exempt from disclosure. R.C. 149.433(A) defin es “infrastructure record” as “any record that discloses the configuration of c ritical systems including, but not limited to, communication, computer , electrical, mechanical, ventilation, w ater, and plumbing systems, security codes, or the infrastructure or structural co nfiguration of a building.” R.C. 149.433(B)(2) states that “[a] record kept by a public office that is an infrastructure record of a public office, public school, or a chartered nonpublic school is not a public record under section 149.43 of the Revis ed Code and is not subject to mandatory release or disclosure under that section.” NCCC argues that the records Hedenberg seeks regarding the printer relate to the infrastructure of the prison’s computer systems and are therefore statutorily exempt from disclosure. {¶ 23} This court denied NCCC’s motion to dismiss and ordered it, with in ten days, to provide to this cour t for in camera review the doc uments requested by Hedenberg in his complaint. On October 1, 2019, NCCC filed a r esponse to that order, stating that there are no responsive records. NCCC supp orts that statement with an affidavit from its finance manager, Robyn Boden, in whi ch Boden states
that NCCC does not maintain records of service calls made to Ri coh, the printer’s manufacturer. She testifies, “No records are left with NCCC re lated to these service calls as they are covered under the service agreement between [ the company that operates NCCC] and Ricoh.” {¶ 24} Finally, after over 18 months of NCCC’s non-responsive response s, Hedenberg’s request for records culminated in NCCC’s filing of an affidavit that explained that the facility has no documents responsive to the request for recordsS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

10 regarding the printer. And only after this court ordered NCCC to produce the
records for in camera review di d NCCC directly address Hedenber g’s request. {¶ 25} Hedenberg requests statutory damages. We apply the version of
R.C. 149.43 3 that was in effect at the time that he made his records reques ts. State
ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ. , 156 Ohio St.3d 13, 2018-Ohio-5108, 123 N.E.3d 887, ¶ 11, fn. 1. R.C. 149.43(C)(2) provides for statut ory damages of $100 per business day, up to $1,000, if a court determines that the public office “failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with division (B) of this section.” When a public office receives a public-records request it is obligat ed to promptly provide any responsive records within a reasonable amount of time. And when it denies a records request, it must inform the requester of that denial an d provide the reasons for the denial. R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and (3); State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden , 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 11. {¶ 26} As this court noted in Cordell , even if the public office has no responsive records to produce, its failure to respond in a time ly manner with its reasons for its failure to produce the requested records makes it liable for statutory damages. Whether the public office complied with its statutory duty to respond within a reasonable period of time “depends upon all of the per tinent facts and
circumstances.” Cordell at ¶ 12, quoting State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland , 121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901, 906 N.E.2d 1105, ¶ 10. The req uester “bears the burden of demonstrating that t he [public office’s] response to [the] public-records requests was unreasonably delayed.” Id. at ¶ 12, citing State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson , 106 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-4384, 833 N.E.2d 274, ¶ 44. {¶ 27} Following several requests to NCCC and its officials, Hedenberg received no substantive response as to why NCCC could not produ ce records

3. Hedenberg’s complaint is governed by former R.C. 149.43 , 2016 Sub.H.B. No. 71. All references to R.C. 149.43 refer to that version unless otherwise noted.January Term, 2020

11 regarding the out-of-service printer. The warden and deputy wa rden merely responded that they were unable or not permitted to provide the records. Even in its brief to this court, NCCC claims that the records are infr astructure records. But a record concerning the status of one printer does not constitu te an infrastructure record; an infrastructure record is instead “any record that di scloses the configuration of critical sys tems.” R.C. 149.433(A). What Hed enberg sought had nothing to do with the configura tion of a critical system. {¶ 28} Hedenberg meets his burden of p roving that respondents’ respons e regarding the out-of-service printer was unreasonably delayed. Still, Hedenberg is not entitled to statutory damages unless he made his records re quest “by hand delivery or certified mail.” R .C. 149.43(C)(2). “Hand deliver y” is not defined in the statute. There is no dispute in this case that Hedenberg m ade his requests through the prison “kite” system . “A ‘kite’ is written by an i nmate to a member of the prison staff and is ‘a means for inmates to contact staff m embers inside [an]
institution.’ ” State ex rel. Martin v. Greene , 156 Ohio St.3d 482, 2019-Ohio-1827, 129 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 3, fn. 1, quoting State v. Elmore , 5th Dist. Richland No. 16CA52, 2017-Ohio-1472, ¶ 15. Because I would hold that requesting pub lic records by kite constitutes hand delivery, see State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-3686, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 60 (Kennedy, J., dissent ing), I would also hold that Hedenberg is eligible to receive statutory damages un der R.C. 149.43(C)(2). {¶ 29} Statutory damages are calculate d at the rate of $100 for every business day that the public office or person responsible for t he requested public records failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B ), starting from the date on which the requester filed his or her mandamus complaint , with a maximum award of $1,000. R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Hedenberg filed his manda mus complaint on August 7, 2018, yet he could not have learned that NCCC lacked any responsiveS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

12 records until NCCC informed this court of that fact nearly 14 m onths later on October 1, 2019, so he is e ligible for the maximum amount of st atutory damages. {¶ 30} A court may decline to award statutory damages or reduce the amount of the award if it finds that based on the public-record s law that existed at the time of the alleged conduct that constituted the failure to comply with R.C. 149.43 “a well-informed public office or person responsible for the requested public records * * * reasonably would believe that the conduct * * * did not constitute a failure to comply * * * with [R.C. 149.43(B)],” R. C. 149.43(C)(2)(a), and also that “a well-informed public office or person responsi ble for the requested public records reasonably would believe that the conduct * * * would serve the public policy that underlies the authority that is asserted as permitting that conduct,” R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(b). Neither of the reduction factors apply i n this case. Hedenberg sought only the service records for a specific printe r covering a specific period of time, which could not reasonably be considered to be infrastructure records if they existed. Therefo re, I would hold that Hedenber g is entitled to an award of $1,000 in statutory damages. {¶ 31} In accordance with our duty to uphold the law as it is written, I would determine that NCCC is liable for statutory damages for its fai lure to fully comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and (3) and to provide Hedenberg a timel y response outlining the reasons for its denial of his request for records relating to the out-ofservice printer. But the majority seems content to let NCCC an d its employees flout
the law. {¶ 32} Although Hedenberg is an incarcerated individual, he has the sa me right as any other person to access certain public records docu menting disclosable prison procedures. Therefore, I would award Hedenberg statutor y damages in the amount of $1,000. Because the majorit y determines differently, I dissent.

_________________ Jonathan Hedenberg, pro se.January Term, 2020

13 Mansour Gavin, L.P.A., Michael P. Quinlan, and Kenneth E. Smith , for respondents.

_________________