State ex rel. Cook v. Magee

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Cook v. Magee, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1106.]




                                           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. 2026-OHIO-1106
                         THE STATE EX REL. COOK v. MAGEE.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
          may be cited as State ex rel. Cook v. Magee, Slip Opinion No.
                                     2026-Ohio-1106.]
Mandamus—Public records—R.C. 149.43—Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to
        order production of a record he has been provided access to, so writ would
        be redundant—Statutory damages denied because record was made
        available to relator on day he filed his complaint—Writ denied as moot.
       (No. 2025-0007—Submitted June 24, 2025—Decided April 1, 2026.)
                                       IN MANDAMUS.
                                   __________________
        The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,
DEWINE, DETERS, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ. BRUNNER, J., dissented and
would order respondent to work with relator to determine whether the video is
corrupted and would defer consideration of the merits and relator’s request for
damages until after the parties make such determination.
                                 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Relator, Joshua D. Cook, requested a copy of video footage from the
surveillance system of Chillicothe Correctional Institution (“CCI”), where he is
imprisoned. CCI’s records custodian, respondent, Natalie Magee, initially told
Cook that she had sent the video footage to the attorney general’s office and that he
was not permitted to have security footage. But the day that Cook filed this action
for a writ of mandamus to enforce his request, Magee told him that he could view
the video footage, although for prison-security reasons he was not permitted to have
a copy on a DVD. Later, at Cook’s request, Magee mailed a DVD containing a
copy of the footage to Cook’s agent.
        {¶ 2} Because Magee has provided the requested record, we deny as moot
Cook’s petition for a writ of mandamus. And because Magee gave Cook access to
the record the day that Cook filed this action, we deny Cook’s request for an award
of statutory damages.
                    I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
        {¶ 3} Magee is the warden’s administrative assistant and CCI’s public-
information officer, and her job duties include responding to public-records
requests made at CCI. On May 22, 2024, Cook sent an electronic kite1 requesting
“that the cameras in mental health be preserved from 9:30 until 10:16 am for
5/22/24 for pending legal issue,” explaining that the footage would be subpoenaed.
Magee responded that she had “already preserved the video footage and . . . sent
[it] to the AG’s office to be submitted once the subpoena has been signed . . . .”
That evening, Cook sent a second kite, stating, “I make a public records request for
the video surveillance from 5/22/24 9:30 - 10:16am. . . . Therefore your office is



1. A “kite” is a type of written correspondence between an inmate and prison staff. State ex rel.
Griffin v. Szoke, 2023-Ohio-3096, ¶ 3.


                                               2
                                January Term, 2026




requested to provide such video to me.” On May 29, Magee responded, “I have
sent the video to be preserved with the Attorney General’s office as you are not
permitted to have security footage.” Cook did not respond.
       {¶ 4} Seven months later, on December 30, Cook sent a kite asking for the
email address of an attorney at the attorney general’s office. Cook followed up on
January 2, 2025, saying, “No longer required. Issue resolved. The [attorney
general] states they don’t have the video. I’ll writ of mandamus it.” Magee asked
whether he was talking about the video footage of the outside of the mental-health
offices, which appears to be what Cook had requested in May. Cook confirmed
that that was what he was requesting and claimed that the attorney general’s office
knew nothing about the video footage. On Friday, January 3, Magee told Cook that
he was not permitted to have a copy of the video footage on a DVD but that he
could review it in person. That same day, Cook filed this action for a writ of
mandamus, asserting that Magee had denied his May 22, 2024 public-records
request.
       {¶ 5} On Monday morning, Magee responded to Cook again, stating, “I did
not deny you the video and I said that you are permitted to view the video. You are
not permitted to have a DVD as it is a matter of security. You can have a copy
forwarded to your attorney or someone else you deem necessary to have a copy.
The cost for the DVD is $5 and you will need to pay for it to be sent certified
mail. . . . Once you have paid for the DVD and postage, it will be sent out.” Magee
attests that she followed up on January 8, offering again to let Cook view the video,
but Cook declined and insisted that he would pursue the writ of mandamus.
       {¶ 6} On January 17, Cook provided an address where Magee could mail
the DVD. After he paid for the DVD and postage, Magee sent it on February 12,
2025. Cook attests that his agent received the video footage, but he also attests that
“the video does not work.”




                                          3
                                SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        {¶ 7} After Magee answered the complaint, we granted an alternative writ
setting a schedule for the filing of evidence and briefs. See 2005-Ohio-1023. Cook
asserts in his merit brief that he still does not have the record, because the footage
Magee sent to Cook’s agent was corrupted and not viewable. He asks for statutory
damages. Magee responds that she provided him with the opportunity to view the
video footage and mailed a copy of the footage to a person designated by Cook,
mooting his claim for mandamus. As for statutory damages, she asserts that she
both responded to his request and provided him the opportunity to view the
requested footage, absolving her of any fault. She adds that she gave him an
opportunity to view the record the same day that he filed his mandamus action, so
this court should deny statutory damages.
                                      II. ANALYSIS
                A. Cook’s agent has received the requested record
        {¶ 8} R.C. 149.43,2 Ohio’s Public Records Act, requires public offices and
persons responsible for public records to make their public records available when
properly requested. R.C. 149.43(B)(1). When the records custodian fails in this
duty, a writ of mandamus is available to enforce a relator’s legal right to the record.
R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b); see State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible
Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 2006-Ohio-903, ¶ 6.
        {¶ 9} To obtain the writ, Cook must prove that he has a clear legal right to
the requested record and that Magee has a clear legal duty to provide it. State ex
rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 2015-Ohio-974, ¶ 10. For a writ of mandamus to
issue, there must still be some existing record outstanding. See State ex rel. Ware
v. Vigluicci, 2024-Ohio-3131, ¶ 10. If a respondent provides the requested record
before the suit is filed, the relator has no cause to plead in mandamus. State ex rel.


2. The General Assembly has recently amended R.C. 149.43, most notably in 2024 Sub.H.B. No.
265 (effective Apr. 9, 2025), and some provisions have been renumbered. This opinion applies the
version of the statute enacted in 2024 Sub.S.B. No. 29 (effective Oct. 24, 2024).


                                               4
                                 January Term, 2026




Payne v. Rose, 2023-Ohio-3801, ¶ 8. If the respondent provides the record after
the complaint is filed, the relator’s petition for mandamus is moot, id., citing State
ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 2019-Ohio-1827, ¶ 7, but claims for statutory damages,
attorney’s fees, and court costs might remain, State ex rel. Woods v. Lawrence Cty.
Sheriff’s Office, 2023-Ohio-1241, ¶ 7.
         {¶ 10} Magee’s first response to the request explained that Cook was “not
permitted to have security footage.” She later told him that he could view the
footage but that he was not permitted to possess a copy on a DVD. She has now
produced a copy of the record Cook requested by sending a DVD to an outside
address that Cook provided. Cook argues that he has not received the record,
though he confirms that his agent has received the DVD. He also attests that the
disc was corrupted and unreadable.
         {¶ 11} This court has held that the security risk posed by contraband DVDs
is a sufficient reason to deny inmates a DVD copy of video footage. State ex rel.
Slager v. Trelka, 2024-Ohio-5125, ¶ 30. Magee presented two alternatives: either
Cook could come view the video footage or she could send a DVD to an outside
party. Either would suffice to provide Cook with access to the video.
         {¶ 12} Cook chose to have the DVD sent to a third party. Magee therefore
fulfilled any duty to produce the record when she mailed a DVD according to
Cook’s preference. Although Cook asserts that the record has not been produced
because he does not have that DVD, he has not shown that his right to the record
trumps the prison’s discretion to “‘“maintain institutional security.”’” Id. at ¶ 29,
quoting State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, 2020-Ohio-3927, ¶ 15, quoting
Briscoe v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2003-Ohio-3533, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.).
         {¶ 13} Cook further claims that the file is unreadable and therefore has not
been produced. But he does not provide evidence to show that the video was
corrupted. He merely submits his own affidavit stating that “the video does not
work.”




                                          5
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        {¶ 14} Magee has provided the record requested, and Cook has not
submitted evidence showing that the record was somehow incomplete or otherwise
not properly produced. Therefore, we deny as moot Cook’s petition for a writ of
mandamus.
B. Magee offered the record to Cook the same day that he filed for a writ of
                                      mandamus
        {¶ 15} Cook also asks for statutory damages. A requester shall be entitled
to statutory damages if (1) his request was transmitted by an approved means,
including electronic submission, (2) the request fairly described the public record
being requested, (3) the request was sent to the public office or person responsible
for the public record, and (4) “a court determines that the public office or the person
responsible for public records failed to comply with an obligation” under R.C.
149.43(B).3    R.C. 149.43(C)(2); see Woods, 2023-Ohio-1241, at ¶ 8.              When
awarded, statutory damages are set at $100 for each business day “during which the
public office or person responsible for the requested public records failed to comply
with an obligation” under R.C. 149.43(B), calculated beginning with the day on
which the requester filed a mandamus action, with a maximum award of $1,000.
R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
        {¶ 16} The clock for statutory damages does not start until the requester
files an action in mandamus. R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Regardless of any prior delay,
Magee provided Cook with an opportunity to view the record the same day that he
filed for mandamus. Though Cook refused to view the record and insisted that
Magee send the video footage to a third party, Magee fulfilled her duty under the
Public Records Act when she made the record available for Cook to view. See State
ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, 2020-Ohio-3927, at ¶ 15 (“There is no



3. Cook made his request through the prison kite system, which constitutes an “electronic
submission” for purposes of R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Szoke, 2023-Ohio-3096, at ¶ 8.


                                           6
                                January Term, 2026




justification for granting a writ of mandamus to compel Sehlmeyer to allow an in-
person inspection, especially when, as here, the institution has offered to make the
records available by other means.”).
       {¶ 17} Because after Cook filed his mandamus action, no days passed
during which he was unable to access the record he sought, Cook has not shown
that he is entitled to an award of statutory damages. Accordingly, we deny his
request.
                               III. CONCLUSION
       {¶ 18} Cook seeks a writ of mandamus to order the production of a record
he has been provided access to. The writ would, therefore, be redundant, so we
deny it as moot. And we deny statutory damages because the record was made
available to him on the day that he filed his complaint.
                                                              Writ denied as moot.
                              __________________
       Joshua D. Cook, pro se.
       Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Adam Beckler and D. Chadd McKitrick,
Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
                              __________________




                                         7