Court Opinion

ID: 9391790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 13:07:03.732815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.013942
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Howson v. Delaware Cty. Sheriff’s Office, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1440.]

                                           NOTICE
      This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
      advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
      promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 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.

                          SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-1440
   THE STATE EX REL . HOWSON v. DELAWARE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
  may be cited as State ex rel. Howson v. Delaware Cty. Sheriff’s Office, Slip
                             Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1440.]
Mandamus—Public-records requests—Inmate failed to carry his burden to rebut
        by clear and convincing evidence showing of sheriff’s office that it had
        provided all public records responsive to inmate’s request—Writ and
        requests for statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees denied.
      (No. 2022-0927—Submitted February 7, 2023—Decided May 3, 2023.)
                                       IN MANDAMUS.
                                   __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Relator, David R. Howson, seeks a writ of mandamus directing
respondent, the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office (“DCSO”), to produce records
in response to a public-records request. Because Howson has not proved that he is
                                  SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

entitled to this relief by clear and convincing evidence, we deny the writ. We also
deny Howson’s requests for statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
              I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         {¶ 2} Howson is incarcerated at the Toledo Correctional Institution. In
March 2022, Howson sent by certified mail a public-records request (the “first
request”) to DCSO, which had investigated and arrested him for crimes he was
ultimately convicted of. In this first request, Howson sought a variety of records,
including correspondence between himself and DCSO employees, emails relating
to him sent between DCSO employees, DCSO jail rules and regulations, records of
Howson’s incoming and outgoing mail from DCSO’s jail, records of contraband
searches, logs showing Howson’s outgoing phone calls from jail telephones, and
certain DCSO dispatch records. Howson requested that the records be provided
“either in paper form or * * * in a PDF format and on a DVD.”
         {¶ 3} Approximately ten days after sending his first request, Howson sent
by certified mail a second request to DCSO (the “second request”). The second
request sought 12 categories of records, many of which relate to Howson’s arrest,
investigation, and prosecution in connection with the crimes for which he is
currently incarcerated.1 The documents Howson identified in his second request
were as follows:

         1)   [a]ny     and     all   police     reports,    narratives,      statements,
              supplements, audio or video recordings, photographs, and other
              documents relating to the arrest, investigation, and prosecution
              of David Ryan Howson between 2020 and 2022[;]

1. Howson’s request was subject to R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which provides that an incarcerated person
cannot obtain public records “concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution” unless “the judge
who imposed the sentence * * *, or the judge’s successor in office, finds that the information sought
in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.”
Howson obtained the required finding from the judge who sentenced him.

                                                 2
                         January Term, 2023

2)   [a]ny   and   all   police   reports,   narratives,   statements,
     supplements, photographs, audio or video recordings, and other
     documents relating to the arrest, investigation, and/or
     prosecution of Duncun Francis Maclam between 2020 and
     2022.
3)   [a]ny   and   all   police   reports,   narratives,   statements,
     supplements, photographs, audio or video recordings, and other
     documents relating to the arrest, investigation, and/or
     prosecution of Lisa Marie Slentz between 2020 and 2022[;]
4)   [a]ny   and   all   police   reports,   narratives,   statements,
     supplements, audio or video recordings, and other documents
     relating to the arrest, investigation, and prosecution of Edward
     Douglass Dill [between] 2020 and 2022[;]
5)   [a]ny   and   all   police   reports,   narratives,   statements,
     supplements, audio or video recordings, and other documents
     relating to the arrest, investigation, and prosecution of James
     M. Slentz between 2020 and 2022[;]
6)   [a]ny   and   all   police   reports,   narratives,   statements,
     supplements, audio or video recordings, and other documents
     relating to the investigation, reporting, or response to any calls
     for service or reports of criminal conduct from Ms. Kathryn
     Moyer between 2020 and 2022[;]
7)   [a]ny   and   all   police   reports,   narratives,   statements,
     supplements, audio or video recordings, and other documents
     relating to the investigation, reporting, or response to any calls
     for service or reports of criminal conduct from Mr. Arthur
     Carpenter between 2020 and 2022[;]

                                  3
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

       8)   [a]ny    and     all   police   reports,   narratives,   statements,
            supplements, audio or video recordings, and other documents
            relating to the investigation, reporting, or response to any calls
            for service or reports of criminal conduct from Mr. James P[.]
            Schuck between 2020 and 2022[;]
       9)   [a]ny    and     all   police   reports,   narratives,   statements,
            supplements, audio or video recordings, and other documents
            relating to the investigation, reporting, or response to any calls
            for service or reports of criminal conduct from Mr. Thomas
            Presley between 2020 and 2022[;]
       10) [a]ny audio recording, video recording, combination of audio-
            video recording, or similar record made on March 10, 2021
            during the interview with David R. Howson in the Delaware
            County Jail’s interview room.
       11) [a]ny Jail incident report relating to the Delaware County Jail
            receiving a harassing, threatening, or annoying call between
            January 1, 2021, and February 28, 2021[; and]
       12) [a]ny and all shift pass on logs from the Delaware County Jail
            between March 10, 2021 and December 2, 2021.

Howson asked that responsive records be provided in PDF format on a DVD.
       {¶ 4} DCSO responded to the first request on April 4, 2022, with a letter
and a DVD containing responsive records, which Howson received on April 14.
Howson contends that many of the records stored on the DVD had been redacted
and that the DVD did not contain all the records responsive to his first request.
According to Howson, DCSO’s response also failed to identify the legal authority
justifying the redactions.

                                            4
                                January Term, 2023

       {¶ 5} During a phone conversation with an unidentified DCSO employee
on April 20, Howson inquired about the status of DCSO’s response to the second
request as well as whether DCSO would provide records identified in his first
request that he believed were outstanding.        Howson alleges that the DCSO
employee told him that responsive records would be provided and that the
employee did not mention any redactions or exemptions from disclosure.
       {¶ 6} DCSO sent another letter and DVD to Howson on April 27, which he
received on May 10. According to Summer Hodgkinson, DCSO’s public-records
specialist, the DVD sent on April 27 contained all outstanding records responsive
to the first request as well as all records responsive to the second request that were
not subject to an exemption from disclosure. Also included among the documents
stored on the April 27 DVD were DCSO forms noting “necessary redactions and
exemptions to the records produced, consistent with and subject to applicable Ohio
public-records laws.” Though the forms noted applicable exemptions, they did not
specifically identify the records or requests to which the exemptions applied.
       {¶ 7} For his part, Howson disputes Hodgkinson’s description of the
contents of DCSO’s April 27 response. Howson contends that the DVD that DCSO
sent him on that date does not contain any records responsive to the second request.
He also argues that the April 27 response did not explain why records responsive
to his second request were not produced. Howson’s affidavit does not dispute
Hodgkinson’s testimony that the April 27 response provided all outstanding records
responsive to the first request, though he does question why some of them were
redacted. He also contends that neither the April 7 DVD nor the April 27 DVD
“contains any notice regarding exemptions or redactions from disclosure for either
of [his] requests.”
       {¶ 8} On June 20, Howson mailed DCSO a letter following up on his
public-records requests and claiming that neither DVD sent to him contained

                                          5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

records responsive to his second request. Howson attached to his letter a copy of
the second request and repeated his request for the records.
       {¶ 9} Howson commenced this action in this court on July 29, seeking a
writ of mandamus ordering DCSO to provide the records identified in his second
request. He also demanded awards of statutory damages, “any costs associated with
this action,” and “any reasonable attorneys’ fees that may arise.” DCSO filed a
motion to dismiss the action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which this court could grant relief. DCSO’s sole argument in support of dismissal
was that all existing public records responsive to Howson’s requests had been
provided, rendering the action moot. We denied the motion to dismiss, granted an
alternative writ, and set a schedule for the submission of evidence and the filing of
merit briefs. 168 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2022-Ohio-3636, 196 N.E.3d 842.
       {¶ 10} After Howson filed his complaint, Hodgkinson reexamined
Howson’s second request and all records produced in response thereto.
Hodgkinson gathered all records originally produced, prepared a follow-up
response and copies of all responsive records, and sent Howson another DVD
containing responsive records on November 7. In a cover letter, Hodgkinson noted
additional records provided on the November 7 DVD that were not included on the
April 27 DVD.
       {¶ 11} As with her April 27 response, Hodgkinson included several forms
listing the reasons some documents responsive to the second request had been
redacted or were exempt from disclosure. On one of the forms, which had not been
provided with the April 27 DVD, Hodgkinson noted that “Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and
11” of Howson’s second request were exempt from disclosure because responsive
records were subject to an order to seal records under R.C. 2953.53. See State ex
rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 101 Ohio St.3d 382, 2004-Ohio-1581, 805
N.E.2d 1094, ¶ 6 (under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v), records ceased to be public records
when sealed).

                                         6
                               January Term, 2023

       {¶ 12} Both parties have submitted evidence and filed merit briefs; Howson
did not timely file a reply brief. Howson has also filed a motion to strike DCSO’s
merit brief under S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(E), alleging that it had not been served on him
in accordance with this court’s Rules of Practice.
                                 II. ANALYSIS
                              A. Motions to Strike
       {¶ 13} On February 14, 2023, nearly two months after his reply brief was
due, Howson filed a motion to strike DCSO’s merit brief on the basis that DCSO
had not served a copy of it on him. In the alternative, Howson asks us to allow him
to file a reply brief. Howson also filed a motion and amended motion to supplement
his motion to strike to add an affidavit and a copy of the reply brief he wishes to
file. DCSO opposes Howson’s motion to strike and moves to strike it on the basis
that Howson did not serve it on DCSO.
       {¶ 14} “When a party * * * fails to serve a party or parties to the case in
accordance with [the rules of service], any party adversely affected may file a
motion to strike the document that was not served.” S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(E)(1). If we
determine that service was not properly made, we may strike the document or order
that it be served and impose a new deadline for the filing of any responsive
document. S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(E)(2).
       {¶ 15} Though our docket shows that DCSO filed its merit brief on
December 8, 2022, Howson contends that he did not receive a copy from DCSO’s
counsel. In the certificate of service appended to DCSO’s brief, however, counsel
for DCSO certifies that a copy of the brief had been served by regular U.S. mail on
Howson at his address of record. Howson has, at most, established that DCSO’s
brief was not delivered to him at the prison. He has not shown that DCSO failed to
comply with the service requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(C)(1). See id. (“Service
by mail is effected by depositing the copy with the United States Postal Service for

                                         7
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

mailing”). We deny Howson’s motion to strike, the motion to supplement, and the
amended motion to supplement, and we deny as moot DCSO’s motion to strike.
                          B. Howson’s Mandamus Claim
        {¶ 16} Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, requires a public office to
make copies of public records available to any person upon request within a
reasonable time. R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Mandamus is an appropriate remedy by which
to compel compliance with the Public Records Act. State ex rel. Physicians
Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio
St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 6.
        {¶ 17} To be entitled to the writ, Howson must demonstrate that he has a
clear legal right to the requested relief and that DCSO has a clear legal duty to
provide that relief. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392,
2015-Ohio-974, 31 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 10. Howson bears the burden to plead and prove
facts showing that he requested a public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and
that DCSO did not make the record available to him. See Welsh-Huggins v.
Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170
N.E.3d 768, ¶ 26.
        {¶ 18} A public office may establish by affidavit that all existing public
records have been provided. State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty.
Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537, 2009-Ohio-1767, 905 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 15. The
requester may rebut the public office’s affidavit by clear and convincing evidence
showing a genuine issue of fact as to whether additional responsive records exist.
State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty. Prosecutor, 164 Ohio St.3d 552, 2021-Ohio-
623, 174 N.E.3d 718, ¶ 15. “Clear and convincing evidence” is a measure or degree
of proof that is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than the beyond-
a-reasonable-doubt standard required in a criminal case and that produces in the
trier of fact’s mind a firm belief as to the fact sought to be established. State ex rel.
Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350, 2013-Ohio-3720, 995 N.E.2d

                                           8
                                January Term, 2023

1175, ¶ 14. If the requester does not rebut the public office’s evidence that it
responded fully to the public-records request, this court will deny the writ. See
Frank at ¶ 16.
                                1. The first request
       {¶ 19} Howson’s complaint does not seek a writ of mandamus relating to
the first request. Rather, it demands a writ of mandamus ordering DCSO to respond
fully to only the second request. And in his response to DCSO’s motion to dismiss,
Howson “concede[d] the first request was fulfilled in its entirety by the two (2)
DVDs provided” to him in April and May 2022. But in his merit brief, Howson
changes course and argues that DCSO did not timely respond to his first request,
that DCSO did not properly justify its redactions to the records it produced, and
that he is entitled to statutory damages for those purported violations of the Public
Records Act.
       {¶ 20} We decline to address the merits of Howson’s new claim. Howson
did not plead a claim for relief in his complaint with respect to the first request or
file a motion to amend the complaint. We issued an alternative writ based on a
pleading that did not include any claim related to the first request—after Howson
conceded that DCSO had responded fully to that request. Thus, the claim is not
properly before this court. See State ex rel. Massie v. Gahanna-Jefferson Pub.
Schools Bd. of Edn., 76 Ohio St.3d 584, 589, 669 N.E.2d 839 (1996).
                               2. The second request
       {¶ 21} As for the second request, Howson contends that DCSO has failed
to respond at all. DCSO disputes Howson’s contention, arguing that the DVD it
sent him on April 27, 2022, contained electronic copies of all public records held
by DCSO that were responsive to the second request. DCSO further contends that
it sent Howson another DVD on November 7, updating its response to include
additional documents responsive to item Nos. 9 and 11 listed in the second request.

                                          9
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

DCSO summarizes its April 27 and November 7 responses to the second request as
follows:
  •    Records responsive to item Nos. 1, 7, and 8 were provided, with applicable
       redactions, in both the April 27 and the November 7 response.
  •    There are no public records responsive to item Nos. 2 through 6, because
       any responsive records are exempt from disclosure as “unlisted arrests,
       expunged and/or sealed records or criminal investigation information.”
  •    There were no public records responsive to item No. 9 at the time of
       DCSO’s April 27 response, because responsive records were exempt; the
       exemption subsequently ceased to be applicable, so DCSO provided
       responsive documents with appropriate redactions in its November 7
       response.
  •    There are no public records responsive to item No. 10, because responsive
       records are “infrastructure records” exempt from disclosure.
  •    DCSO provided all records responsive to item No. 11, which it had liberally
       construed as including case reports.
  •    There are no public records responsive to item No. 12, because DCSO “does
       not possess or maintain” the requested documentation.
       {¶ 22} Howson and DCSO thus have a factual dispute concerning whether
DCSO has produced any records responsive to the second request. DCSO attests
that it sent Howson two DVDs containing records responsive to the second request,
and it has submitted into evidence copies of the documents stored on those DVDs
(which each contain more than 300 pages); conversely, Howson has testified that
none of the DVDs he received contain documents responsive to his second request.
But it is Howson’s burden to rebut by clear and convincing evidence DCSO’s
attestation that all responsive public records have been provided. See Frank, 164
Ohio St.3d 552, 2021-Ohio-623, 174 N.E.3d 718, at ¶ 15. Absent contrary evidence

                                        10
                               January Term, 2023

from Howson, the materials DCSO has submitted into evidence here defeat
Howson’s claim that DCSO has not fully responded to the second request. See
State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St.3d 22, 2018-Ohio-5110,
123 N.E.3d 895, ¶ 18; see also Strothers v. Norton, 131 Ohio St.3d 359, 2012-Ohio-
1007, 965 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 13 (affirming denial of writ when public office submitted
evidence that it had given access to all requested records and requester “did not
submit the requisite clear and convincing proof to the contrary”). We therefore
deny the writ.
             C. Statutory Damages, Court Costs, and Attorney Fees
       {¶ 23} Howson also requests court costs, statutory damages, and attorney
fees. Regarding his first request, Howson is not entitled to any of this relief. As
stated above, Howson failed to assert any claim related to the first request in his
complaint.
       {¶ 24} Nor is Howson entitled to any of this relief in connection with the
second request. As for statutory damages, Howson is potentially eligible for an
award because he transmitted his request by certified mail. See R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
But to qualify for statutory damages, Howson must establish that the public office
“failed to comply with an obligation in accordance with [R.C. 149.43(B)].” R.C.
149.43(C)(2). For example, Howson would qualify for statutory damages if he
showed that DCSO did not provide responsive records within a reasonable amount
of time or that DCSO denied his request without informing him of the denial and
the reasons for the denial. See R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and (3); State ex rel. Cordell v.
Paden, 156 Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 11.
       {¶ 25} But Howson has not proved a violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The basis
for Howson’s mandamus and statutory-damages claims is that DCSO allegedly did
not respond at all to the second request. But as explained above, Howson has failed
to prove that allegation with clear and convincing evidence. To the contrary,
Howson has not rebutted DCSO’s evidence demonstrating that it provided all

                                        11
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

records responsive to the second request in the DVDs sent to Howson on April 27
and November 7, 2022.
         {¶ 26} Nor is Howson entitled to court costs or attorney fees. A relator in
a public-records mandamus action is entitled to court costs only if (1) the court
orders relief or (2) the court determines that the public office acted in bad faith by
voluntarily making records available for the first time after the relator commenced
the mandamus action.       See R.C. 149.43(3)(a).      Because Howson not shown
entitlement to a writ of mandamus, he cannot recover costs under R.C.
149.43(C)(3)(a)(i). And he has made no argument that the bad-faith provision in
R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(ii) applies. Thus, Howson is ineligible for an award of court
costs.
         {¶ 27} As for attorney fees, Howson (who is acting pro se) did not offer any
evidence that he has incurred fees and his merit brief does not explain why he would
be entitled to attorney fees. By failing to include the attorney-fee claim in his merit
brief, Howson has waived it. See 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.
                                III. CONCLUSION
         {¶ 28} For the foregoing reasons, Howson has failed to demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to mandamus relief. We therefore
deny the requested writ. We also deny Howson’s requests for statutory damages,
court costs, and attorney fees. In addition, we deny Howson’s motion to strike
DCSO’s merit brief, and we deny his motion and amended motion to supplement
the motion to strike. Finally, we deny as moot DCSO’s motion to strike.
                                                                         Writ denied.
         KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                                _________________

                                          12
                             January Term, 2023

       David R. Howson, pro se.
       Fishel, Downey, Albrecht & Riepenhoff, L.L.P., Daniel T. Downey, and
David C. Moser, for respondent.
                             _________________

                                     13