Court Opinion

ID: 9942484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 14:07:58.07486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:09.139205
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-596.]

                                           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. 2024-OHIO-596
                        THE STATE EX REL . BARR v. WESSON.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-596.]
Public-records requests—Relator showed that records custodian failed for
        approximately 180 days to comply with his obligation under R.C. 149.43(B)
        to produce requested document—Relator awarded $1,000 in statutory
        damages.
   (No. 2023-0113—Submitted January 9, 2024—Decided February 21, 2024.)
         ON MOTION TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT ON STATUTORY DAMAGES.
                                   __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} In this original action, relator, Harry M. Barr, requested (1) a writ of
mandamus directing respondent, James Wesson, the warden’s assistant at Grafton
Correctional Institution (“GCI”), to produce records in response to a public-records
request and (2) statutory damages under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. We
granted a limited writ ordering Wesson either to produce a copy of a “mental health
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

kite” dated April 21, 2022, with reference number GCI0422002492 or to show
cause why the record could not be produced. State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, __ Ohio
St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3645, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 3, 19. We deferred our determination
of statutory damages until Wesson had complied with the limited writ. Id. at ¶ 19.
       {¶ 2} Wesson timely complied with the limited writ and mailed a copy of
the kite to Barr. In his notice of compliance with the limited writ, Wesson states
that his counsel had obtained a copy of the kite from the main office of the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) and that on October 19,
2023, counsel forwarded it to Barr. Barr acknowledges receipt of the kite and has
filed a motion asking us to proceed to judgment on the issue of statutory damages
and to award him the statutory maximum amount of $1,000. Wesson has not
responded to Barr’s motion.
                          STATUTORY DAMAGES
       {¶ 3} R.C. 149.43(C)(2) provides that a public-records requester shall be
entitled to statutory damages if (1) he made a public-records request by one of the
statutorily prescribed methods, (2) he made the request to the public office
responsible for the requested records, (3) he fairly described the documents being
requested, and (4) the public office failed to comply with an obligation under R.C.
149.43(B). The amount of damages accrues at $100 for each business day during
which Wesson failed to meet his R.C. 149.43(B) obligations, beginning on the day
Barr filed this mandamus action, up to a maximum of $1,000. R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
       {¶ 4} We already determined that (1) Barr is eligible for statutory damages
because he transmitted his public-records request by electronic kite and (2) Wesson
did not dispute that he was the proper respondent or that Barr fairly described the
kite he had requested. Barr, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3645, __ N.E.3d __, at
¶ 17. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether Wesson’s response to the limited
writ shows that he failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B).

                                        2
                                January Term, 2024

       {¶ 5} Following our issuance of the limited writ, Wesson produced the kite
that Barr requested on December 5, 2022. Wesson’s notice of compliance indicates
that his counsel obtained the kite from another source—namely, the ODRC “main
office”—which arguably calls into question whether the record was in Wesson’s or
GCI’s possession. See State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168, 2011-
Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 28 (records custodian has no duty under Public
Records Act to produce records custodian does not possess). However, Wesson
does not state that he or GCI did not have the kite when Barr requested it on
December 5, 2022. Wesson complied with the limited writ by producing a copy of
the kite, without qualification and without ever disputing in this case that he was
the proper party from whom to request the kite in question. See Barr at ¶ 17.
Accordingly, “Barr [has] shown that Wesson failed to comply with his obligation
to produce it under R.C. 149.43(B),” id. at ¶ 18.
       {¶ 6} Barr filed this action on January 27, 2023, and Wesson did not comply
with his R.C. 149.43(B) obligation to produce the requested kite until October 19,
2023—approximately 180 business days later. Barr is therefore entitled to the
maximum award of statutory damages.
                                 CONCLUSION
       {¶ 7} For the foregoing reasons, we award statutory damages in the amount
of $1,000 to Barr.
                                                                  Motion granted.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and
DETERS, JJ., concur.
       FISCHER, J., dissents.
                                _________________
       Harry M. Barr, pro se.
       Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horváth, Assistant Attorney
General, for respondent.

                                         3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 _________________

          4