Background
In March 2024, incarcerated requester Lionel Harris used a contraband cellphone to email the Put-in-Bay Police Department a public-records request covering ten categories of records. The email, sent from an account bearing another person’s name, was diverted to the department’s spam folder and was not seen. Harris did not follow up.
Harris made a second request in March 2025 for five categories of personnel, budget, payroll, complaint, and use-of-force records. Ten days later, he filed this original mandamus action seeking responses to both requests, $2,000 in statutory damages, and court costs. After learning of the suit, the department located the 2024 email, responded to both requests, produced responsive records, and stated that other requested records did not exist.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the writ. The department submitted affidavits attesting that it had produced every responsive record, and Harris offered only speculation—not clear and convincing evidence—that additional records existed. Because the department had fulfilled the requests, Harris did not establish a clear legal right to further production or a corresponding duty to provide more records.
The court also denied statutory damages. It held that the 13-month response to the 2024 request was not shown to be unreasonable under the unusual circumstances because the email had entered the spam folder without the department’s knowledge and the department responded promptly after discovering it. As to the 2025 request, Harris did not clearly and convincingly prove that he transmitted it electronically; alternatively, the court held that a 30-day response was reasonable given the request’s scope and the need to identify and review records. The court denied costs because it denied the writ and Harris had proceeded as an indigent litigant. Chief Justice Kennedy dissented from the denial of statutory damages and would have awarded $2,000; Justice Brunner would have awarded $1,000 for the 2024 request.
Key Takeaways
- A requester must present clear and convincing evidence—not speculation—to overcome a public office’s sworn statement that it produced all responsive records.
- Whether a public office responded within a reasonable time depends on all pertinent circumstances, including whether it knew of the request and whether the requester followed up about a delayed response.
- A requester seeking statutory damages must clearly and convincingly prove that the request was transmitted by a statutorily qualifying method.
Why It Matters
The decision treats an email’s unnoticed diversion to a spam folder as relevant to whether a public office responded within a reasonable time, at least when the office promptly complies after learning of the request. It also underscores the evidentiary burden on requesters seeking additional records or statutory damages.
The divided court exposed a significant disagreement over whether Ohio’s Public Records Act measures timeliness from transmission or from the public office’s awareness of an emailed request. The majority applied a fact-specific reasonableness analysis, while the principal dissent argued that the ruling creates an extra-statutory “found later” exception.