[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance 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 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. 2020-OHIO-3815

THE STATE EX REL. HEDENBERG, v. NORTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL 

COMPLEX ET AL.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance 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—Mandamus—Statutory damages—Writ of 

mandamus will not issue when uncontroverted 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.) 

IN MANDAMUS. 

________________ 

 Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Relator, Jonathan Hedenberg, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel

the production of public records. We deny the writ because the evidence establishes 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

that respondents, the North Central Correctional Complex, Warden Neil Turner, 

Deputy Warden Becky Joyce, “Mr. Potter,” “Mr. Minchaka,” and “Management 

Training Corp.,”1

 (“NCCC”), do not possess documents responsive to Hedenberg’s 

public-records requests. In addition, we deny Hedenberg’s request 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 publicrecords 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 sheets, this time addressed to Turner. 

{¶ 3} On May 9, 2018, Hedenberg sent a request to Potter, again requesting 

the word-processor and LexisNexis sign-up sheets. And on that same date, he also 

sent a request to Mr. Minchaka in the “I.T.” department. In the request to 

Minchaka, in addition to asking for the sign-up sheets, Hedenberg requested “any 

logs, e-mails, maintenance requests, or other related documents, that pertain to the 

printer/copiers contained in the Special Services Building” that had been created in 

late January or February 2016, including “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 librarian, had given 

him a copy of a Ricoh work order, but that he had not been provided 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 that 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 parties filed evidence and Hedenberg filed 

a merit brief with a supplement titled “Declaratory Statement under 28 U.S.C. 

1746.” When NCCC filed its brief, it captioned it as both a merit brief and a motion 

to dismiss. We denied NCCC’s motion to dismiss and ordered NCCC to provide 

to this court under seal “the documents requested by relator in his complaint.” 

{¶ 6} In response, NCCC filed an affidavit from Robyn Boden, the finance 

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 remedy by which to compel compliance 

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 mandamus will not issue 

when the uncontroverted evidence shows that the requested documents 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]nmates 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 discarded and not 

saved or maintained.” In conclusion, Turner attests that “no requested sign in sheets 

were retained. NCCC does not have in its possession the records requested by 

Relator, and therefore, cannot produce any.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 9} To refute Turner’s claims, Hedenberg submitted as part of his merit 

brief a document that he titled “Declaratory Statement Under 28 U.S.C. 1746.” 

Hedenberg purported to sign the document under penalty of perjury, but the 

document is not notarized. NCCC argues that Hedenberg’s unsworn 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 Hedenberg’s 

unsworn declaration as evidence, it fails to refute Turner’s evidence that the 

LexisNexis sign-up sheets do not exist. In the declaration that 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 requests 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. Weidner,” who he describes 

as a former librarian at NCCC, maintained several years of LexisNexis 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 seek in 

my complaint were part of the above described documents in 

question. 

(Emphasis added.) Hedenberg concedes 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 logs, e-mails, maintenance requests, 

or other related documents, that pertain to the printer/copiers contained in the 
January Term, 2020 

5

Special Services Building” that had been created in late-January 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 records and/or work 

orders for the subject Ricoh printer for the time period referenced.” According to 

Boden, when service is required, NCCC makes a service request by 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-maintenance 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 while 

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 Ricoh’s 

breakdown; it provides the date the Ricoh workorder was created

and an estimated date of completion described on the form as the 

date of the completion. 

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 public-records case in 

two circumstances. First, an award of court costs is mandatory when the court 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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 “acted 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 issued any order 

concluding whether or not” to grant a writ of mandamus. See R.C. 

149.43(C)(3)(a)(ii) and (iii). Neither scenario applies to the facts of this case, and 

therefore Hedenberg is not entitled to an award of court costs.

{¶ 14} Nor is Hedenberg eligible for an award of statutory damages. 

Statutory damages are available only if Hedenberg proves by clear and convincing 

evidence that he had delivered his request “by hand delivery, electronic 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 concedes that he 

delivered his requests through the prison “kite” system. “A ‘kite’ is written by an 

inmate to a member of the prison staff and is ‘a means for inmates 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 of a prison kite to 

request public records does not qualify the requester for an award 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 request for an award of statutory damages and court costs.

 

Writ denied. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and STEWART, JJ., 

concur. 

DONNELLY, J., concurs in judgment only. 

KENNEDY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion. 
January Term, 2020 

7

_________________ 

KENNEDY, 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-processor and LexisNexis sign-up sheets from 

respondents North Central Correctional 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 records concerning a 

printer at the facility that had been out of service. Hedenberg’s first documented 

request for information about the printer was dated March 21, 2018. It was not 

until NCCC filed an affidavit on October 1, 2019, in response to 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 over 18 months, 

NCCC led Hedenberg—and at times, this court—to believe that NCCC 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 Hedenberg statutory damages. 

{¶ 17} Hedenberg first requested information about the printer from Deputy 

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 is 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 Joyce wrote to 

Hedenberg, “I am not permitted to pull the records.” 

{¶ 18} On March 30, 2018, Hedenberg sent a request to Warden Neil Turner 

again asking for the records: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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 order 

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 attempt 

to find out the specific day it broke. I need this for the court because 

the printer breaking caused 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 information 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 January. 

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 when 

the printers broke. I know the library computer was serviced Feb 

8th, I have a copy of the Ricoh work order. 

{¶ 20} Minchaka responded that Hedenberg needed to seek assistance from 

Hedenberg’s unit staff. 

{¶ 21} Hedenberg filed the present mandamus action in this court on 

August 7, 2018. None of the named respondents affiliated 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 and motion to dismiss 

on June 21, 2019. In support of NCCC’s argument that this court should deny the 

writ, NCCC submitted an affidavit from Turner in which he stated, “Relator 
January Term, 2020 

9

requested work orders and related communications for the NCCC printers and 

copiers. For security reasons, NCCC does not provide work orders and related 

documents to inmates or the public that are classified as infrastructure records or 

that relate to the computer systems at NCCC.” 

{¶ 22} NCCC argues in its merit brief that any records regarding the broken 

printer are infrastructure records under R.C. 149.433 and are therefore exempt from 

disclosure. R.C. 149.433(A) defines “infrastructure record” as “any record that 

discloses the configuration of critical systems including, but not limited to, 

communication, computer, electrical, mechanical, ventilation, water, and plumbing 

systems, security codes, or the infrastructure or structural configuration 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 Revised 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, within 

ten days, to provide to this court for in camera review the documents requested by 

Hedenberg in his complaint. On October 1, 2019, NCCC filed a response to that 

order, stating that there are no responsive records. NCCC supports that statement 

with an affidavit from its finance manager, Robyn Boden, in which Boden states 

that NCCC does not maintain records of service calls made to Ricoh, the printer’s 

manufacturer. She testifies, “No records are left with NCCC related 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 responses, 

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 records 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

regarding the printer. And only after this court ordered NCCC to produce the 

records for in camera review did NCCC directly address Hedenberg’s request. 

{¶ 25} Hedenberg requests statutory damages. We apply the version of 

R.C. 149.433 that was in effect at the time that he made his records requests. 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 statutory 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 obligated 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 and 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 timely 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 pertinent 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 requester “bears the 

burden of demonstrating that the [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 produce 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 warden 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 infrastructure records. But 

a record concerning the status of one printer does not constitute an infrastructure 

record; an infrastructure record is instead “any record that discloses the 

configuration of critical systems.” R.C. 149.433(A). What Hedenberg sought had 

nothing to do with the configuration of a critical system. 

{¶ 28} Hedenberg meets his burden of proving that respondents’ response 

regarding the out-of-service printer was unreasonably delayed. Still, Hedenberg is 

not entitled to statutory damages unless he made his records request “by hand 

delivery or certified mail.” R.C. 149.43(C)(2). “Hand delivery” is not defined in 

the statute. There is no dispute in this case that Hedenberg made his requests 

through the prison “kite” system. “A ‘kite’ is written by an inmate to a member of 

the prison staff and is ‘a means for inmates to contact staff members 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 public 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., dissenting), I would also 

hold that Hedenberg is eligible to receive statutory damages under R.C. 

149.43(C)(2). 

{¶ 29} Statutory damages are calculated at the rate of $100 for every 

business day that the public office or person responsible for the 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 mandamus complaint on 

August 7, 2018, yet he could not have learned that NCCC lacked any responsive 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

records until NCCC informed this court of that fact nearly 14 months later on 

October 1, 2019, so he is eligible for the maximum amount of statutory 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-records 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 responsible 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 in this case. 

Hedenberg sought only the service records for a specific printer covering a specific 

period of time, which could not reasonably be considered to be infrastructure 

records if they existed. Therefore, I would hold that Hedenberg 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 failure to fully comply 

with R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and (3) and to provide Hedenberg a timely 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 and its employees flout 

the law. 

{¶ 32} Although Hedenberg is an incarcerated individual, he has the same 

right as any other person to access certain public records documenting disclosable 

prison procedures. Therefore, I would award Hedenberg statutory damages in the 

amount of $1,000. Because the majority 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. 

_________________