Opinion ID: 4566315
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statutory damages, court costs,

Text: and McDougald’s second motion for leave {¶ 14} In his complaint, McDougald requests an award of statutory damages for what he alleges was Sehlmeyer’s “bad faith” denial of his request. A 4 January Term, 2020 person requesting public records “shall” be entitled to recover an award of statutory damages “if a court determines that the public office or the person responsible for public records failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with [R.C. 149.43(B)].” R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Because we conclude that Sehlmeyer did not fail to comply with any obligation under the Public Records Act, we deny McDougald’s request for statutory damages. {¶ 15} Under the version of R.C. 149.43 in effect when McDougald made his public-records request,1 he had to transmit his request by “hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail” to qualify for an award of statutory damages. R.C. 149.43(C)(2). On February 18, 2020, McDougald filed his second motion, seeking leave to supplement this record with “the facts that he submitted his public records request ‘kite’ by hand delivery to Sonrisa Sehlmeyer on September 24, 2019 as she conducted her inmate communication/weekly rounds pursuant to [Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”)] policy 50-PAM-02.[2]” Thus, McDougald seeks leave to add facts that, if proved, would satisfy the delivery-method requirement in R.C. 149.43(C)(2). But because McDougald is not entitled to an award of statutory damages on the merits, the method of delivery is irrelevant. We therefore deny his request for leave to amend. {¶ 16} Finally, McDougald is not entitled to an award of court costs. Court costs may be awarded under the Public Records Act only when a court grants a writ of mandamus compelling an official to comply with obligations imposed by the act, 1. Public-records requests are governed by the version of R.C. 149.43 that was in effect at the time that the request was made. State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 11. The version of the Public Records Act that governs McDougald’s requests, R.C. 149.43 as amended by 2018 Sub.H.B. No. 425, took effect in April 2018. 2. ODRC Policy 50-PAM-02, at 2, states, “It is the policy of    ODRC to require the managing officer, deputy wardens, and duty officers to make unannounced visits to the institution’s living and activity areas at least weekly to encourage informal contact with staff and inmates and to informally observe living and working conditions.” https://drc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Policies/ DRC%20Policies/50-PAM-02%20(12-2019).pdf?ver=2019-12-09-140951-550 (accessed Aug. 31, 2020) [https://perma.cc/6YGX-QPSM]. 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i), or when the public office produces the records after the mandamus suit is filed but before relief is ordered and a court determines that the office acted in bad faith, R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(ii) and (b)(iii). Neither condition has been met here.