[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4487.]

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
. 2021-O HIO -4487
T HE S TATE EX REL
. E LLIS , A PPELLANT , v . C LEVELAND P OLICE F ORENSIC
L ABORATORY , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Ellis v. Clevel and Police Forensic Laboratory , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4487.]
Public Records Act—Mandamus—Statu tory damages—Request for recordsretention policies of public office is not subject to R.C. 149.43(B)(8)’s restrictions on requests by incarcer ated persons—Denial of relator’s request was not reasonable—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and statutory damages awarded to relator. (No. 2021-0628—Submitted October 5, 2021—Decided December 23, 2 021.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeal s for Cuyahoga County, N o. 10757 1.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, L’Ddaryl D. Ellis, a ppeals the judgment of the Eight h District Court of Appeals denying his motion for an award of st atutory damagesS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 under the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and hold that Ellis is entitled to statutory d amages. Background {¶ 2} Ellis is an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. In June 2018, while confined at the Trumbull Correctional Institution, Ellis sent a request by certified mail to the Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory (“CP FL”) for three categories of public records. First, without identifying a spe cific case or investigation, he requested “All Investigative Reports [and] Al l Laboratory or Hospital Reports,” as well as statements of police, victims, an d witnesses. Second, he requested the results of a ballistics test of a “Skyy 9mm ca liber pistol, Model CPX1, with serial #018313.” And third, he requested “Copies of al l Records Retention Schedule, Records Retention Polic y, and Public Records Policy.” {¶ 3} In August 2018, Ellis filed a mandamus action in the Eighth Dis trict alleging that the CPFL had not responded to his request. In ad dition to an order compelling the CPFL to provide the requested records, Ellis sou ght statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2). {¶ 4} The court of appeals granted CPFL’s motion for summary judgment in part, denied the motion in part, and granted a writ of mandamus compelling the production of some of the requested records. 8th Dist. Cuyahog a No. 107571, 2019- Ohio-710, ¶ 13. The court of appeals deemed the first request “overly broad and not subject to disclosure,” because Ellis “failed to specify or ide ntify with reasonable clarity” which records he sought. Id . at ¶ 2. The court rejected Ellis’s second request because he did not obtain approval from the sentencing judge be fore requesting documents relating to a criminal investigation, as inmates are required to do under R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Id . at ¶ 5. Further, the court concluded that “the doctrine of r es judicata also bar[red] Ellis from seeking a writ of mandamus” f or the ballistics results, because he had previously been denied relief when seek ing those records in
an action before the Court of Claims. Id . at ¶ 8.January Term, 2021

3 {¶ 5} However, the court of appeals held that R.C. 149.43(B)(8) was inapplicable to Ellis’s third request—for the CPFL’s records-re tention schedule and policies—because those records do not relate to a criminal inve stigation or prosecution. Id . at ¶ 9. The court granted a wr it of mandamus ordering the CP FL to provide those records. Id . at ¶ 11. The CPFL subsequently informed the court that it had complied with the order by releasing those records to El lis. {¶ 6} Because the CPFL failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B), Ellis filed a motion for an award of statutory damag es. He then appealed the decision denying the writ as to his first two requests. We affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the court of appeals for considerationof Ellis’s statutorydamages motion. 157 Ohio St.3d 483, 2019-Ohio-4201, 137 N.E.3d 1171, ¶ 12. {¶ 7} On remand, the court of appeals denied the request for statutor y damages. In a one-paragraph journal entry, the court explained : “Although this Court ultimately held that the Cleveland Police Forensic Lab is requi red to release its retention schedule, it was reasonable for the Cleveland Police Forensic Lab to interpret R.C. § 149.43(B)(8) as requiring it to withhold these documents from Ellis because it was part of the larger improper request.” Ellis app ealed. Legal analysis {¶ 8} A person requesting public records , provided he has used a qual ifying method of transmission, “ shall be entitled to recover” an award of statutory damages “if a court determines that the public office or the pe rson responsible for public records failed to comply with an obligation in accordanc e with [R.C. 149.43(B)].” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 149.43(C)(2). We have re cognized that the Public Records Act “provides for an award of statutory damages * * * when a court determines that the public office failed to comply with an obli gation to provide
access to the records.” State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 155 Ohio St.3d 545, 2018-Ohio-5111, 122 N.E.3d 1208, ¶ 23.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 9} Statutory damages under R.C. 149.43( C)(2) “are mandatory whenev er a public-records custodian fails to comply with her obligation[ s].” State ex rel.
Ware v. Akron , 164 Ohio St.3d 557, 2021-Ohio-624, 174 N.E.3d 724, ¶ 18. We review de novo a court of appeals’ decision to grant or deny st atutory damages
under the Public Records Act. State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Trustees , 163 Ohio St.3d 304, 2021-Ohio-1176, 170 N.E.3d 19, ¶ 12. {¶ 10} The amount of statutory damages is fixed at $100 for each busin ess day during which the public office or official fails to comply with a statutory obligation, beginning on the day the requester files a mandamus action, up to a maximum of $1,000. R.C. 149.43(C)(2). However, a court may re duce the amount or not award statutory damages at all if it makes the following two findings:

(a) That, based on the ordinary application of statutory law
and case law as it existed at the time of the conduct * * * of the public office * * * that allegedly constitutes a failure to com ply with an obligation * * *, a well-informed public office * * * reason ably
would believe that the conduct * * * of the public office * * * did not constitute a failure to comply with an obligation in accord ance with [R.C. 149.43(B)]; (b) That a well-informed public office * * * reasonably
would believe that the conduc t * * * of the public office * * * would serve the public policy that unde rlies the authority that is as serted as permitting that conduct * * *.

R.C. 149.43(C)(2)(a) and (b). {¶ 11} When a court exercises its discretion to reduce an otherwise mandatory statutory-damages award, we review that decision for an abuse of
discretion. State ex rel. DiFranco v. S. Euclid , 138 Ohio St.3d 367, 2014-Ohio-January Term, 2021

5 538, 7 N.E.3d 1136, ¶ 14, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati , 157 Ohio St.3d 290, 2019-Ohio-3876, 135 N.E.3d 772, ¶ 12. In this case, however, the court of appe als denied Ellis’s motion for statutory damages. We therefore review the denial o f his statutorydamages request de novo. {¶ 12} Although the court of appeals did not indicate that it was reducing the award, it made one of the findings necessary to support a r eduction: that the CPFL’s interpretation of R.C. 149.43(B)(8) in support of its de nial of the recordsretention documents was reasona ble. Without recognizing the di stinction between a denial and a reduction, the CP FL’s merit brief appears to mis construe the Eighth
District’s decision as a reduction of the award to z ero and asks this court to review that decision for an abuse of discretion. Nonetheless, under e ither standard of review, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and awa rd the maximum amount of statutory damages. {¶ 13} The Public Records Act imposes restrictions on the ability of a n inmate to reque st records.

A public office or person respons ible for public records is not required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction * * * to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public
record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution * * * unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring informa tion that is subject to release as a public record under this section and the judge who imposed the sentence * * * finds that the information sought in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the

person.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 (Emphasis added.) R.C. 149.43(B)(8). In the absence of the ne cessary finding from the sentencing judge, an inmate is not entitled to the requeste d records. State ex
rel. Fernbach v. Brush , 133 Ohio St.3d 151, 2012-Ohio-4214, 976 N.E.2d 889, ¶ 2. {¶ 14} By its terms, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) applies only to records “concer ning a criminal investigation or prosecution.” The court of appeals correctly determined that Ellis’s second request, for t he results of ballistics test s, was precluded by R.C. 149.43(B)(8). 8th Dist. C uyahoga No. 107571, 2019-Ohio-710, at ¶ 5. And in the earlier appeal of this case, we held that the statute also appl ied to Ellis’s overbroad request for unidentified investigative materials. 157 Ohio St. 3d 483, 2019-Ohio4201, 137 N.E.3d 1171, at ¶ 12. But his third request, for the records-retention schedules and policies, did not relate to a criminal investigat ion or prosecution and was therefore not subject to R.C. 149.43(B)(8). The question, then, is whether it was reasonable for the CPFL to believe that it could reject the entire request for noncompliance with R.C. 149.43(B)(8 ) without parsing the indivi dual requests to see if any fell outside the scope of that provision. {¶ 15} The answer to that question may be found in the plain language of the statute. R.C. 149.43(B)(8) excuses a public office or offi cial from having to provide a record when it relates to a criminal proceeding. This provision does not create a blanket rule that an o ffice or official may disregard an entire request when a portion thereof is subject to the prerelease approval of the sentencing judge. The CPFL suggests that it was reasonable for it to believe that its blanket rejection was appropriate but does not cite any court d ecisions in support of this position. {¶ 16} To rule in favor of the CPFL, we would have to first assume tha t the court of appeals intended to award statutory damages and then reduce the award to zero pursuant to R.C. 143.49(C)(2), even though that is not wha t the court said in its entry. We would then have to assume that the court of appe als implicitly addressed both prongs of the reduction analysis, even though th e judgment entryJanuary Term, 2021

7 does not mention the second prong, i.e., whether “a well-inform ed public office” would have reasonably believed that its conduct served the publ ic policy underlying R.C. 149.43(B)(8). And then we would have to conclude that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was reasonab le for the CPFL to
have acted in a manner that i s not supported by the plain langu age of the statute or any prior court decisions. This exceeds the reasonable bounds of deference inherent
in an abuse-of-discretion revie w, and certainly fails under a d e novo review. {¶ 17} We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant Ellis ’s application for an award of stat utory damages. Given the lengt h of time during which the CPFL failed to respond, we conclude that Ellis is ent itled to the maximum amount permitted under the statute, $1,000.
Conclusion {¶ 18} We reverse the judgment of the c ourt of appeals and award statu tory damages. Judgment reversed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________ L’Ddaryl D. Ellis, pro se. Barbara A. Langhenry, Cleveland Director of Law, William M. Men zalora, Chief Assistant Director of Law, and Timothy J. Puin, Assistant Director of Law, for appellee.

_________________