A recent decision in the Ohio Supreme Court tackles a nuanced but important issue in Ohio public records litigation: when has a government agency done "enough" to satisfy its obligation under the Ohio Public Records Act and how should courts respond when the dispute becomes moot?
In State ex rel. Ames v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Trustees, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1027, the Court clarified the proper procedural handling of a mandamus action when the requested records have already been provided. The ruling not only reaffirms existing precedent on what qualifies as a "record" but also offers a procedural correction to the lower court's handling of the case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: THE ELEVENTH DISTRICT
The dispute began when Ames, a citizen of Ohio, requested staff meeting minutes from Concord Township in May 2024. The Township provided what it had-- several draft versions of these minutes, but Ames contended these were insufficient because they had not been formally approved or signed. Since the minutes received were unofficial, unsigned, and somewhat hard to understand, Ames filed a mandamus action, claiming the township failed to comply with R.C. 149.43, Ohio's Public Records Act. He sought statutory damages and claimed the case should not be moot just because the documents were eventually handed over.
The Eleventh District Court of Appeals agreed in part with the Township, finding the claim moot because the records (albeit draft versions) had been produced. However, it dismissed the case instead of ruling directly on the writ.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the case and modified the Eleventh District's ruling, clarifying that: "upon finding that a writ claim is moot, the correct disposition is to deny the writ." Ames, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1027 at ¶ 33. The Court held that Concord Township had met its legal obligations by turning over the records it had within a "reasonable time" under the Ohio Public Records Act, despite some delay, and that the request did not entitle Ames to documents in a finalized or altered format. Therefore, the Court modified the Eleventh District's decision and denied the writ as moot, with no statutory damages or fees awarded.
This reinforces a recurring theme in public records law: governments are required to turn over what exists, not to create or finalize documents to satisfy a requester's preference.
TAKEAWAYS
1. Transparency v. Practicality
This case exemplifies the tension between a citizen's right to government transparency and the administrative burden placed on public bodies. The ruling favors practical compliance over idealized expectations. Governments are expected to act diligently, but not instantly, and are not required to alter the form of records to satisfy the requester. Agencies are not obligated to polish, format, or formalize documents just to satisfy a request; the Court refused to create a duty to create or upgrade documents. Further, the tone of the Court's opinion suggests increasing judicial scrutiny toward serial records litigants, particularly when requests are on the verge of hyper-technical. Courts are favoring a functional compliance standard over strict formalism.
2. Procedural Precision
The Court corrected a technical misstep by the Eleventh District, which had dismissed the case as moot. For practitioners, the case is a procedural reminder—courts must deny moot writs, not dismiss them, to preserve the legal clarity of mandamus actions.
3. Defining records
The opinion adds weight to the interpretation that drafts or preliminary documents can satisfy public records requests, as long as they are responsive and in the government's possession. If such versions are the only ones to exist, they still qualify as records under the Ohio Public Records statute.
FINAL WORD
Ames provides valuable guidance for both public entities and requesters navigating Ohio's open records landscape. It emphasizes that substantial compliance and timely response matter, even if the documents do not match the requester's ideal form. Overall, the case is a win for efficient government and for common-sense accountability, but a loss for requesters that want cleaned-up or finalized versions of documents.