Opinion ID: 4583929
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pleadings and motions in the court of appeals

Text: {¶ 2} Ware is an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI”). On January 3, 2019, he sent a public-records request to the governor by certified mail. Ware requested copies of the governor’s office’s (1) records-retention schedule, (2) public-records policy, (3) records-management manual, (4) index of county commissioners, (5) index of appointment records for persons appointed to public office by the governor, and (6) current employee roster. {¶ 3} By a letter dated January 28, 2019, the governor’s office acknowledged receipt of the request and promised a response within a reasonable period of time. Ware sent a follow-up inquiry on February 20 and alleges that he received no response. Therefore, on March 19, he filed an original action against the governor in the court of appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the production of the documents as well as an award of statutory damages. {¶ 4} The governor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of mootness. He attached to the motion an affidavit from Sean T. McCullough, assistant chief counsel to the governor, attesting that McCullough sent responsive documents to Ware on March 13. Copies of McCullough’s cover letter and the records provided to Ware were attached as exhibits to the motion. {¶ 5} Ware filed a motion for summary judgment, but the Tenth District magistrate stayed consideration of that motion pending a ruling on the governor’s motion to dismiss. In his memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss, Ware argued that a writ should issue because even though the governor claimed to have sent the records on March 13, the complaint made clear that as of March 19, Ware 2 January Term, 2020 had not received them. Ware’s memorandum was silent as to whether he received the records after the complaint was filed. {¶ 6} On May 3, 2019, the magistrate converted the governor’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Ware filed a memorandum in opposition to the governor’s summary-judgment motion on May 22. In an attached affidavit, Ware attested, “[T]o this day I still have not receive[d] the requested public records.” {¶ 7} On May 31, the governor filed a combined reply brief in support of his own summary-judgment motion and memorandum in opposition to Ware’s (previously stayed) motion for summary judgment. The governor submitted a second affidavit from McCullough, again asserting that responsive documents were sent to Ware in March 2019, before Ware filed his complaint. In addition, the affidavit stated that because Ware claimed not to have received the first mailing, McCullough had re-sent the documents to him on May 28. {¶ 8} In addition, the governor submitted an affidavit from Julie Loomis, the warden’s assistant at TCI. According to Loomis, all incoming mail from state chief executives addressed to inmates is processed as “legal mail” and recorded on the “Legal Mail Log.” And the Legal Mail Log, which was also submitted as an exhibit, shows that on March 19, 2019, TCI received legal mail addressed to Ware from the office of the governor. {¶ 9} On June 14, 2019, Ware filed a document captioned “Affidavit in support of the attached evidence pursuant to Local Rule 13(G)” (the “June 14 affidavit”). The June 14 affidavit asserted that the production of records in May was incomplete: according to Ware, he received no documents responsive to request Nos. 3 (the records-management manual) or 4 (the index of county commissioners) and an incomplete response to request No. 5 (the index of appointment records). 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 10} In response, the governor filed a surreply brief, along with a third affidavit from McCullough. McCullough stated that the governor’s office does not have a records-management manual or an index of commissioners and that it provided all the pages of the “index of appointments” that were in its possession at the time of the request. B. The magistrate’s decision and the court of appeals’ judgment {¶ 11} On July 19, 2019, the magistrate issued a decision recommending that the court deny Ware’s motion for summary judgment, grant the governor’s motion for summary judgment, and deny the writ of mandamus. In rendering his decision, the magistrate made clear that he would consider Ware’s June 14 affidavit for only a limited purpose. According to the magistrate, the June 14 affidavit was “composed entirely of legal arguments and conclusory statements of law” and would therefore be considered “solely as non-evidentiary material in the form of argument.” 2019-Ohio-5203, ¶ 36. {¶ 12} The magistrate rejected Ware’s claim that the governor’s responses were incomplete. With respect to request Nos. 3 and 4, the magistrate credited McCullough’s affidavit testimony that the governor’s office does not maintain a records-management manual or a list of county commissioners. Ware argued that R.C. 107.10(C) requires the governor’s office to keep a record of commissioners and of information concerning their appointments and that the existence of the statute created a material question of fact concerning whether the governor’s office in fact had the records. The magistrate rejected that argument: “Here, respondent may have a legal duty to maintain the requested record listing county commissioners, but having failed to do so, respondent has no duty to produce it in response to a public-records request because the Public Records Act concerns existing records, not records that ought to exist.” 2019-Ohio-5203 at ¶ 48. The magistrate did not make a separate finding concerning request No. 5—the list of appointees—but he appears to have accepted McCullough’s representation that the 4 January Term, 2020 governor’s office provided everything it had, even though the provided list included only one name. {¶ 13} As for Ware’s claim that he never received the March mailing, the magistrate concluded that this assertion did not create a dispute of material fact. According to the magistrate, McCullough’s affidavit and exhibits established that the governor’s office sent responsive records in March, and Loomis’s affidavit and exhibits established that a package of mail sent from the governor’s office to Ware was received at TCI around the same time. According to the magistrate, the governor satisfied his obligation by mailing the records to the institution where Ware is held, and having done so, “[t]he governor’s office could do nothing more to make the records ‘available’ to relator, and no writ issued by this court could compel the governor’s office to do more than was done with respect to the March 19, 2019 mailing.” Id. at ¶ 44. Finally, the magistrate concluded that the time taken to respond to the public-records request—from January 28 to March 19—was reasonable, and he therefore declined to recommend an award of statutory damages. {¶ 14} Ware filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. He identified three alleged errors: (1) the magistrate should have considered the June 14 affidavit as evidence, (2) the magistrate erroneously concluded that the governor’s office sent documents in March 2019, and (3) the evidence contradicted the magistrate’s finding that the governor’s office does not keep a list of county commissioners. {¶ 15} On December 17, 2019, the court of appeals overruled Ware’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and denied the writ of mandamus. 2019-Ohio-5203 at ¶ 8. Ware appealed.