Opinion ID: 6216413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: {¶ 54} For the reasons set forth above, I dissent from the majority’s decision granting a writ of mandamus and statutory damages for the April 6, 2020 records request. I further dissent from the majority’s decision to deny the writ of mandamus and to deny statutory damages for the April 29, 2020 records requests that Ware sent by certified mail. I would grant a writ of mandamus and award $1,000 in statutory damages for the April 29, 2020 requests. STEWART, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. _________________ DEWINE, J., dissenting. {¶ 55} We have long held that it is the relator’s burden to prove a violation of the Public Records Act by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, when there is conflicting evidence on a material issue that points with equal weight in both directions, we will not issue a writ of mandamus. {¶ 56} We have consistently applied these rules in cases where there is conflicting evidence about whether a government entity has produced documents 20 January Term, 2022 in response to a public-records request. See, e.g., State ex rel. Ellis v. Maple Hts. Police Dept., 158 Ohio St.3d 25, 2019-Ohio-4137, 139 N.E.3d 873, ¶ 6. Today though, the lead opinion declines to follow these rules. It says that when a governmental entity provides sworn testimony that it provided public records and a requesting party swears that it did not receive them, the tie goes to the relator unless the governmental entity produces some unknown quantum of additional evidence “corroborating” its sworn statement. {¶ 57} That the lead opinion would change the rules about the burden of proof in public-records cases is remarkable enough. But what’s even more remarkable is that it does so in a case where it determines that the relator created a fake document and submitted an affidavit that contained material falsehoods. Despite rejecting part of Kimani Ware’s affidavit, the lead opinion assumes that the rest of it must be true. Then, applying the new burden-shifting presumption that it announces today, the lead opinion awards Ware a writ of mandamus, and statutory damages to boot. Because this result is inconsistent with our precedent and is impossible to square with the lead opinion’s conclusion that Ware made false statements in his affidavit, I respectfully dissent.