Background
Thomas Clark, an inmate at Lebanon Correctional Institution, sent five electronic requests to prison officials seeking eight items: ViaPath Technologies terms of use and its contract with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; body-worn-camera and stationary-surveillance footage relating to a search of his cell; Aramark’s proposal for ODRC’s food-services contract; employee rosters; and the institution’s current recreation schedule.
After officials denied some requests, produced or permitted inspection of other records, and allegedly failed to provide certain materials, Clark filed an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio. He sought production of the requested records and $1,000 in statutory damages for each of his five requests. He also moved to require ODRC to treat correspondence from the court as legal mail and sought leave to submit rebuttal evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted a limited writ concerning Aramark’s proposal. Clark presented evidence that the proposal had existed separately from the food-services contract already produced, and ODRC did not adequately rebut that showing. The court ordered ODRC either to provide the proposal and certify that it had done so or to certify that the proposal does not exist or is not in ODRC’s possession. It deferred deciding statutory damages for that request until ODRC complies.
The court denied relief on the remaining records requests. Clark did not establish that ODRC created, stored, or maintained the ViaPath records; that the latent body-camera footage currently existed; or that he had not received the employee roster. ODRC permissibly allowed him to inspect stationary-camera footage instead of giving him a disc, which prison officials considered contraband, and reasonably fulfilled his request for a “current” recreation schedule by providing the schedule current when it responded. The court denied statutory damages for those four requests, denied the legal-mail motion, and admitted only part of Clark’s proposed rebuttal evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A public-records requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence that requested records exist and are maintained by the responding public office.
- A prison may satisfy an inmate’s request for video footage by permitting inspection when furnishing a disc would create security concerns or violate prison rules.
- When evidence shows that a requested document existed separately and the agency does not establish whether it still exists or possesses it, a court may order the agency either to produce the document or certify its nonexistence or lack of possession.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden inmates and other requesters face in public-records mandamus actions, particularly for temporary electronic recordings and records allegedly held by another agency or private vendor. It also confirms that an agency’s reasonable, context-based interpretation of an ambiguous request may defeat mandamus and statutory damages.
Chief Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Brunner, dissented in part. They would have awarded $1,000 for failure to preserve and permit inspection of latent body-camera recordings and would have ordered production of the recreation schedule current on the date Clark requested it, with another $1,000 in damages.