[Cite as State ex rel. Petranek v. Cleveland, 2012-Ohio-2396.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98026

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. 

MARYANNE PETRANEK

RELATOR 

vs. 

CITY OF CLEVELAND, ET AL.

RESPONDENTS 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT GRANTED

Writ of Mandamus 

Order No. 455066 

RELEASE DATE: May 29, 2012 
ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR

Christopher P. Finney 

Finney, Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson 

2623 Erie Avenue 

Cincinnati, OH 45208 

Curt C. Hartman 

Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman 

3749 Fox Point Court 

Amelia, OH 45102 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS

Barbara Langhenry 

Interim Director of Law 

City of Cleveland 

601 Lakeside Avenue, Rm. 106 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

Mark R. Musson 

Assistant Director of Law 

City of Cleveland 

601 Lakeside Avenue, Rm. 106 

Cleveland, OH 44114
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} On February 27, 2012, the relator, Maryanne Petranek, commenced this 

public records mandamus action against the respondents, the city of Cleveland and Kim 

Roberson, Cleveland’s public records administrator. On November 13, 2011, Petranek 

sent a public records request through email requesting copies of the following records: 

“Any and all letters, notes, telephone message slips, memoranda, e-mails, 

documents, contracts, and other forms of communications regarding (i) any 

agreement with Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for use of the 

area in and about Shaker Square; (ii) any agreement between the City of 

Cleveland and the farmers’ market for the use of the area in or about Shaker 

Square; and (iii) the closure of Shaker Boulevard and/or Shaker Square for 

the use of the square by the farmers’ market.” (Exhibit A to the 

complaint.) 

 

On November 14, 2011, Roberson sent Petranek an email acknowledging receipt of the 

requests and the start of processing them. Also, on November 14, 2011, Petranek 

repeated her request for records through certified mail, which was delivered on November 

15, 2011. When Cleveland released no records after three months, Petranek commenced 

this mandamus action. 

{¶2} In their answer, the respondents asserted that the public records claims were 

moot because they had delivered all documents responsive to relator’s requests. 

Subsequently, this court directed the parties to certify the status of the case. The 

respondents were to certify what records were released, when they were released, in what 

form, and whether there were any redactions. The relator was to certify whether she was 
satisfied that the respondents had fulfilled her request, and if not, what records remain 

outstanding and why she believes that any given request had not been fulfilled. 

{¶3} The respondents certified that they had released on March 16, 2012, the 

following records to Petranek: (1) The Street Opening, Sidewalk and/or Obstruction 

Permit Application from the North Union Farmer’s Market, (2) Division of Assessments 

and Licenses Delivery Sign-Off Sheet, and (3) Screen shots of the City’s work flow 

program. 

{¶4} However, it does not appear that the release of these records fulfilled 

Petranek’s requests. In her certification, Petranek attached copies of all the records sent 

to her. There were no records relating to any agreement with the Greater Cleveland 

Regional Transit Authority for the use of the area around Shaker Square, and there was no 

written explanation as to why such records were not provided. In the bottom right-hand 

corner of the “Street Opening, Sidewalk and/or Obstruction Application Permit,” there is 

the notation “Page 1 of 7,” but only the first page was provided. Additionally, in her 

certification Petranek persuasively argues that there must be more responsive records than 

those released. For example, Cleveland released the permit application, but there is no 

permit, much less any other internal records concerning the propriety of granting the 

permit. 

{¶5} Ohio’s public record statute requires that upon request all public records 

responsive to the request shall be promptly prepared and made available for inspection to 

any person at all reasonable times. Also, the public entity upon request shall make 
copies of the requested public records available at costs within a reasonable period of 

time. R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Moreover, if a request is denied, in whole or in part, the 

public entity shall provide the requester with an explanation, including legal authority, 

setting forth why the request was denied. If the initial request was in writing, the 

explanation shall also be in writing. R.C. 149.43(B)(3). The remedy to effect 

compliance with Ohio’s public record statute is the writ of mandamus to order the public 

entity to comply with division (B). 

{¶6} In the present case because the court is convinced that the respondents have 

not fully complied with all of the requirements of division (B), including providing an 

explanation for unfulfilled requests and the missing pages of the application, this court 

issues the writ of mandamus and orders the respondents to comply fully with all of the 

obligations in division (B), including inter alia, to provide the requested records and/or an 

explanation of why the requested records have not been provided. The court further 

directs the parties, if necessary, to meet or communicate, regarding the fulfilling of the 

requests, and to work in good faith with each other to ensure that all possible records have 

been provided or to establish that requested records do not exist. R.C. 149.43(B)(2). 

{¶7} Petranek also seeks an award of statutory damages and attorney fees pursuant 

to R.C. 149.43(C). Recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that an award of 

attorney fees or statutory damages is dependent upon showing the release of the records is 

more for the public benefit than for the requester’s benefit. State ex rel. Dawson v. 

Bloom-Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10, 2011-Ohio-6009, 959 N.E.2d 524, 
¶34; State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, 104 Ohio St.3d 399, 

2004-Ohio-6557, 819 N.E.2d 1087; compare State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., 

L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 131 Ohio St.3d 255, 2012-Ohio-753, 963 N.E.2d 

1288, ¶69 (failure to establish right to statutory damages and attorney fees throughout 

the case resulted in waiver). 

{¶8} In her complaint, Petranek states that her public records request would serve 

the public benefit by encouraging and promoting compliance with the Ohio Public 

Records Act and by subjecting the city of Cleveland to public exposure, review, and 

criticism.1

 This does not state a sufficient public benefit to support an award of attorney 

fees or statutory damages, because any and all public records requests would provide 

these minimal benefits. A statutory award must be based on more than minimal benefits. 

 Additionally, the court declines to award statutory damages because Petranek 

completed her request through email before she completed the request through certified 

mail, which is a statutory prerequisite for statutory damages. Such damages are not 

meant to be a windfall obtained through gamesmanship. 

{¶9} Accordingly, the court issues the writ of mandamus and orders the 

respondents to comply completely with R.C. 149.43(B), but declines to issue an award of 

attorney fees or statutory damages. Respondents to pay costs. This court directs the 

 1

Paragraph 36 of the complaint actually states “subjecting * * * the City of Sharonville to 

public exposure, review and criticism.” This appears to be a clerical error. 
Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals to serve upon the parties notice of this 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). 

Writ granted. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR