The opinion
[Cite as White v. Ross Corr. Inst., 2025-Ohio-2884.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
DONNA M. WHITE Case No. 2025-00474PQ
Requester Special Master Todd Marti
v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROSS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
(RCI)/ OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
Respondent
{¶1} This case is before me for a R.C. 2743.75(F) report and recommendation. I
recommend that the court (1) deny respondent’s motion to dismiss; (2) order respondent
to take the actions listed in the appendix to this report and recommendation within 30
days of the entry of a judgment adopting this report and recommendation; (3) order
respondent to file and serve an affirmation that it took those actions within 40 days of the
entry of a judgment on this report and recommendation; (4) find that respondent
unreasonably delayed its response to the public records requests underlying this case;
(5) order respondent to pay requester’s filing fee, her costs, and the balance of the costs
of this case; and (6) deny all other relief.
I. Background.
{¶2} Requester Donna White’s son died while he was in the custody of the
respondent Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). He was found
to be non-responsive around 12:00 a.m. on July 23, 2024. ODRC staff called for an
ambulance to take him to a local hospital, and administered Narcan and CPR during the
approximately 25 minutes that elapsed before the ambulance arrived. The EMTs and
medical professionals at the hospital made continued efforts to revive him, but he was
pronounced dead at 12:56 a.m. PQ Miscellaneous, Respondent’s Material provided to
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Requester, filed June 16, 2025 (“Redacted Records”), pp. 5-18; Respondent Ross
Correctional Institution (RCI)/Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s
Supplemental Unredacted Material, filed July 11, 2025 (“In Camera Records”), pp. 8-10,
13, 17.
{¶3} Ms. White made multiple public records requests to ODRC for recordings of
activities in the prison where he was housed, copies of her son’s medical records, and for
information about ODRC staff and other inmates who interacted with her son. Those
requests were made in October of 2024 and reiterated in April of 2025. ODRC produced
some records in January, March, and April of 2025, but did not complete its response until
mid-July of 2025. ODRC redacted some of those records and withheld others based on
asserted exemptions from the Public Records Act. PQ Miscellaneous, Respondent’s
presentation of evidence, filed June 16, 2025 (“Respondent’s Evidence”), pp. 3-46; Order,
entered July 8, 2025.
{¶4} Ms. White filed this case on May 12, 2025. Mediation was bypassed because
of how long her requests had been pending and a schedule was set for filing records for
in camera review and for the parties to file evidence and memoranda supporting their
positions. That schedule, as modified, has run its course, making this case ripe for
decision. Complaint, filed May 12, 2025; Order Bypassing Mediation, entered May 16,
2025; Order, entered June 3, 2025; Order, entered July 8, 2025.
II. Analysis.
{¶5} Ms. White’s complaint alleges that ODRC improperly denied some of her
records requests, that its responses to other requests were deficient in various ways, that
it failed to provide legal bases for its denials, and that ODRC unreasonably delayed its
response to her requests.
{¶6} ODRC has not meaningfully addressed those allegations. It instead offers the
procedural defense that Ms. White’s complaint should be dismissed due to her supposed
failure to comply with R.C. 149.43(C)(2) and largely unexplained evidentiary submissions.
Respondent Ross Correctional Institution (RCI)/Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction’s Motion to Dismiss, filed June 26, 2025 (“MTD”); Respondent Ross
Correctional Institution (RCI)/Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s
Presentation of Evidence, filed June 16, 2025 (“Respondent’s Evidence”).
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
A. The court should deny respondent’s motion to dismiss because requester
has complied with R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
{¶7} R.C. 149.43(C)(1) requires a party contemplating suit under the Public
Records Act to serve the public office with a complaint form outlining the violation(s) it
asserts. It also requires the party to wait at least three business days before filing suit.
That requirement is enforced by R.C. 149.43(C)(2):
Upon filing a complaint or mandamus action . . . a person allegedly aggrieved shall
file with the court, in conjunction with the person’s complaint or petition, a written
affirmation stating that the person properly transmitted a complaint to the public
office or person responsible for public records, the failure alleged in the complaint
has not been cured or otherwise resolved to the person’s satisfaction, and that the
complaint was transmitted to the public office or person responsible for public
records at least three business days before the filing of the suit. If the person fails
to file an affirmation pursuant to this division, the suit shall be dismissed.
{¶8} Ms. White attempted to comply with R.C. 149.43(C)(2) by including the
following language in her R.C. 2743.75 complaint:
I affirm that a copy of this complaint was properly transmitted to the public office or
person responsible for public records, that they were provided three business days
to cure or otherwise address the failure alleged in this complaint, and that the
failure alleged in the complaint has not been cured or otherwise resolved.
Complaint, p. 1.1
{¶9} ODRC does not dispute Ms. White’s compliance with R.C. 149.43(C)(1)
requirements, but seeks dismissal because, in its view, she has failed to comply with R.C.
149.43(C)(2) in two respects. It first contends that she has not made a proper “affirmation”
because her affirmation was not made under oath. It also contends that her affirmation
was procedurally deficient because it was made in her complaint, rather than in a separate
filing.
{¶10} The argument that Ms. White’s affirmation was deficient because it was not
made under oath ignores R.C. 3.20. That statute unambiguously states that “[a]n
affirmation has the same effect as an oath.”
{¶11} The argument that Ms. White’s affirmation doesn’t count because it was not
made in a separate pleading also ignores statutory text. R.C. 149.43(C)(2) requires that
1 All references to specific pages of the Complaint are to the pages of the PDF copy
posted on the court’s docket.
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
the affirmation be made “in conjunction with . . . the complaint or petition.” The phrase “in
conjunction with” is commonly understood to mean “together with” or “done . . . together.”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Collins Dictionary;2 Collins Dictionary.3 The courts give the
phrase a similar meaning. Young v. Young, 106 Ohio App. 206, 209 (12th Dist.1958) (“the
state of being joined together,” “combination”). Including the R.C. 149.43(C)(2) affirmation
in the complaint is placing them “together,” a “joining” and a “combination” of the
affirmation and complaint and hence their being “in conjunction with” each other.
{¶12} Finally, Supreme Court’s precedent counsels against ODRC’s construction
of R.C. 149.43(C)(2). The Court “construe[s] R.C. 149.43 liberally in favor of broad
access, with any doubt resolved in favor of disclosure of public records.” State ex rel.
Morgan v. City of New Lexington, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶ 28 (emphasis added). That cuts
against ODRC’s strained construction. Further, that construction would needlessly
complicate cases brought under R.C. 2743.75, a statute intended to provide a process
for those not schooled in law. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-
Ohio-5371, ¶ 12.
{¶13} I therefore recommend that the court DENY respondent’s motion to dismiss.
B. Requester’s production claim should be granted in part.
{¶14} A person seeking to compel production of public records through R.C.
2743.75 must “plead and prove facts showing that the requester sought an identifiable
public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public office or records custodian
did not make the record available.” Welsh-Huggins, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 33.
{¶15} The attachments to Ms. White’s complaint, which are part of that pleading,
show that she sought several categories of records/information from ODRC:
- Video tapes of various incidents that occurred between July 7 and 22, 2024, in
the prison where her son was housed recorded by stationary cameras.
2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20conjunction%20with Accessed July
21, 2025.
3 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/in-conjunction-
with#google_vignette Accessed July 21, 2025.
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
- Videotapes of those events recorded from cameras worn by ODRC personnel.
- Her son’s medical records.
- Photographs of her son after his death and the areas where his body was
located.
- Information about inmates and ODRC employees who interacted with her son.
Complaint, pp. 25, 26, 28, 32, 33.
{¶16} ODRC has not denied the complaint’s allegations that Ms. White made those
requests, establishing the first element of her production claim. Civ. R. 8(D); Myers v.
Paint Twp., 2024-Ohio-4784, ¶¶ 6-8, 10, 12, adopted October 21, 2014 (Ct. of Cl. Case
No. 2024-00426PQ). The question therefore becomes whether ODRC denied her access
to public records responsive to those requests.
1. Videos of incidents between July 7 and 23, 2024, shot from stationary
cameras.
{¶17} Ms. White requested copies of all videos that captured certain events related
to her son occurring between July 7 and 23, 2024. I take these requests to seek video
from stationary cameras because, unlike the requests discussed in section II(B)(2) below,
they do not mention body worn cameras. Complaint, pp. 25, 26, 28, 33.
{¶18} ODRC produced videos from stationary cameras that were recorded during
portions of July 10, 13, 18, 22, and 23, 2024. Ms. White contends that additional videos
exist and that ODRC should be ordered to produce them. PQ Miscellaneous, Motion to
Compel Full and Unredacted Production of Video Records; PQ Miscellaneous, Notice to
Court; PQ Miscellaneous, Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss; all filed
July 14. 2025.4
{¶19} If there is sufficient evidence that a public office has failed to produce all
responsive public records the office must either produce the remaining records or certify
that none exist. State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177, ¶¶ 37-43,
50; State ex rel. Harris v. Pureval, 2018-Ohio-4718, ¶¶ 15, 18. The sufficiency of evidence
4I read these submissions together as a combined response to ODRC’s Motion to
Dismiss. To the extent that they are considered to be motions, I recommend that they be
DENIED as moot in light of the substance of this report and recommendation.
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -6- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
to trigger that obligation varies depending on the office’s response. Clear and convincing
evidence is required if the office provided sworn evidence that no additional records exist.
State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2012-Ohio-4246, ¶¶ 22-26.
However, “some evidence” is sufficient if the office does not provide sworn evidence
negating the existence of additional responsive records. Sultaana, 2023-Ohio-1177, ¶¶
37-43.
{¶20} Although ODRC’s affidavit testimony did not address any videos other than
those recorded from body worn cameras, its evidentiary submission included an email
denying the existence of additional videos shot from stationary cameras. Respondent’s
Evidence, pp. 42, 108-109. That email is not sworn evidence.
{¶21} Ms. White was therefore only required to come forward with some evidence
that additional videos shot from stationary cameras exist. She has not done so. I therefore
recommend that ODRC not be required to produce additional videos shot from stationary
cameras.
2. Video from body worn cameras.
{¶22} Ms. White also requested recordings made from body worn cameras
between July 7 and 23, 2024. Complaint, pp. 25, 26, 28, 33. ODRC produced three
recordings from body worn cameras, all recorded on July 23, 2024. In Camera Records;
S:\PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST\Secure\2025-00474\Playable BWC\Redacted BWC
Video.
{¶23} Ms. White’s memoranda challenge the sufficiency of that production in two
respects. She asserts that ODRC has not produced all responsive recordings and
challenges the redactions to the recordings that were produced.
a. The existence of additional videos.
{¶24} As discussed in connection with the videos from stationary cameras, a
requester claiming that a public office has not produced all responsive records has the
burden of proving that additional responsive records exist. The requester must prove that
fact by clear and convincing evidence if the office provided sworn evidence that it
produced all responsive records, but need only provide “some evidence” if the office has
not provided sworn evidence. “Some evidence exists if . . . other records refer to or
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -7- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
otherwise suggest the existence of the additional records.” Sell v. Trumbull Cty. Juv. Div.,
2024-Ohio-6139, ¶ 6 (Ct. of Cl.).
{¶25} ODRC has not provided sworn evidence that it has provided all the videos
recorded from body worn cameras. Although its inhouse counsel attested that staff at the
prison identified three videos that were responsive to “a” request Ms. White made, that
affidavit does not state that those are the only videos responsive to that single request.
Further, the affidavit did not address whether videos responsive Ms. White’s other
requests for video from body worn camera exist. Respondent’s Evidence, p. 108, ¶ 6.
ODRC is consequently required to either produce additional videos, or certify that none
exist, if there is some evidence that additional responsive videos exist.
{¶26} There is some evidence that additional videos exist. ODRC produced
recordings of the events of July 23, 2024 made from three employees’ body worn
cameras. Those recordings show more than three employees were wearing body
cameras. Further, the recordings from the stationary cameras discussed above show
multiple ODRC employees wearing body cameras. That is some evidence that additional
recordings made from body worn cameras exist.
b. Redactions.
{¶27} The three body worn videos that were produced contained redactions.
ODRC submitted affidavit testimony that the redactions were based on various exceptions
from the Public Records Act. It therefore had the burden of proving that the redacted
material fit squarely within those exceptions. Kearns v. Fairfield Police Dept., 2025-Ohio-
2003, ¶ 5, adopted 2025-Ohio-2373 (Ct. of Cl.). The redactions fell into two categories.
{¶28} Images of Ms. White’s son. The vast majority of the redactions obscured
images of Ms. White’s son as ODRC staff tried to resuscitate him. Those redactions are
based on R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(jj) and (17)(b). Respondent’s Evidence, p. 109, ¶ 9.
{¶29} R.C. 149.43(A)(jj) excepts “[r]estricted portions of a body-worn camera” from
the class of public records. R.C. 149.43(A)(17)(b) defines that term as including portions
of recordings showing the “death of a person or a deceased person’s body, unless the
death was caused by a correctional employee, youth services employee, or peace
officer[.]” The evidence before the court establishes the elements identified in R.C.
149.43(A)(17)(b).
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -8- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶30} These videos showed the “death of a person or a deceased person’s body.”
The time stamps and lengths of the videos indicate that they were recorded between
12:08 a.m. and 12:31 a.m. on July 23, 2024. An ODRC nurse reported that as of
12:01 a.m. he “noted no detectable pulse or respirations” from Ms. White’s son. A
corrections officer reported that as of 12:03 a.m. Ms. White’s son was not responding to
touch and other efforts to rouse him. The captain in charge of the scene reported that as
of 12:06 a.m. he “could not see a rise and fall of the inmate’s chest and no movement.”
The records generated at the hospital where Ms. White’s son was taken reported that the
EMTs found him to “be in cardiorespiratory arrest” when they arrived at the prison. Those
records also reported that “[u]pon presentation to the emergency department, [the] patient
remain[ed] in cardiac arrest” and that “[b]edside cardiac ultrasound showed complete
standstill.” In camera review of the unredacted videos revealed that Ms. White’s son
showed no visible signs of life. He was likely dead, or at the least, in the process of dying,
when the videos were shot. The videos therefore either recorded either the “a deceased
person’s body” or the “death of a person.” Redacted Records, pp. 8, 9, 13; In Camera
Records, pp. 8-10.
{¶31} There is no evidence that the death was caused by a correctional employee.
Nothing suggested a confrontation, violent or otherwise, between Ms. White’s son and
ODRC staff. Further, the nature of his death, by cardiac arrest, is inconsistent with it being
caused by a correctional employee.
{¶32} The other set of redactions were to images of a computer screen, a note
pad, and a flyer. Those redactions were to the 561,736 KB redacted video ODRC filed.
In Camera Records, S:\PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST\Secure\2025-00474\Playable
BWC\Redacted BWC Video. ODRC contends that those redactions obscured R.C.
149.433 security records and information protected by R.C. 5120.21(D). Redactions to a
video are improper if the “images in the video lack sufficient size and/or clarity to allow
one to perceive any information that might be covered by” the exception claimed. Kearns,
2025-Ohio-2003, ¶ 11. In camera review of the unredacted video revealed that the images
redacted from 2:56-3:11; 6:32-6:59; 13:09-14:01; 21:36-21:44; 22:26-22:30 and 22:56-
23:26 of that video are too small and/or unclear to allow one to perceive any information
excepted by R.C. 149.433 or R.C. 5120.21(D). ODRC has provided no non-conclusory
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -9- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
extrinsic evidence showing that the redacted images contained information protected
information by those statutes. It has therefore failed to prove that these redactions were
proper.
3. Medical Records.
{¶33} Ms. White requested her son’s medical records, but ODRC declined to
produce them, asserting that they are exempted from the class of public records by ODRC
policy 07-0RD-02. Respondent’s Evidence, p. 109-110, ¶ 10. That grounds for withholding
the records fails as a matter of law because an internal agency policy, not rising to the
level of an administrative rule, provides no basis for denying a R.C. 149.43 records
request. Mentch v. Cleveland Hts. Univ. Hts. Library, 2020-Ohio-5162, ¶ 6, adopted 2020-
Ohio-5592 (Ct. of Cl.). Indeed, to hold otherwise would be to allow public offices to exempt
themselves from the accountability R.C. 149.43 mandates. That cannot be the law.
{¶34} That being said, the court has discretion to apply obviously applicable
exemptions from the Public Records Act that a respondent has overlooked. State ex rel.
Clark v. Toledo, 62 Ohio St.3d 452, 454 (1992). The medical records exception set out in
R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(a) and (3) is obviously applicable to most of these records. Together,
those statues exempt “[a]ny document or combination of documents . . . that pertains to
the medical history, diagnosis, prognosis, or medical condition of a patient and that is
generated and maintained in the process of medical treatment.” It is “obviously apparent
and manifest just from the content of the record[s]” at issue that most of those records fit
within this exemption. Welsh-Huggins, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 35; In Camera Records, pp. 3,
25-233.
{¶35} That is not true of all the withheld records, however. Records only fit within
R.C. 149.43(A)(3) if they were “generated and maintained in the process of medical
treatment.” Ms. White’s son died, at the very latest, at 12:56 a.m. on July 23. 2024. Id. at
p. 9. A significant number of the withheld records were only created after that time. Id. at
pp. 4-22, 25. They consequently were not generated in the process of medical treatment
because the treatment process had ended before they were generated. See, State ex rel.
Ware v. City of Cleveland, 55 Ohio App.3d 75, 77, (8th Dist.1989). (“The report was not
maintained or generated in the process of medical treatment. Samuel Ware received no
medical treatment because he was found dead at the scene.”)
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -10- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶36} I therefore recommend that the court order respondent to produce pp. 4-22
and 25 of the In Camera Records.
4. Photographs of respondent’s son after his death and the areas where his
body was located.
{¶37} “In general, the provision of requested records to a [requester] in a public-
records *** case renders the *** claim moot.” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dupuis,
2002-Ohio-7041, ¶ 8. A public records claim can be mooted by the respondent producing
the responsive records during the course of the litigation. State ex rel. Striker v. Smith,
2011-Ohio-2878, ¶¶ 17-18, 22.
{¶38} ODRC produced photographs that appear to be responsive to this request
during the course of this case. Respondent’s Evidence, pp 64-107. Ms. White has not
challenged the sufficiency of this production. I therefore recommend that the court find
that this portion of her requests is moot.
5. Information about various inmates and ODRC staffers who interacted
with requester’s son.
{¶39} “R.C. 149.43(B)(1) codifies a right to records that capture information, but
not to information apart from records.” Law Office of Josh Brown LLC v. Ohio Secy. of
State, 2023-Ohio-4438, ¶ 14, adopted 2024-Ohio-819 (Ct. of Cl.). Ms. White sought
information about inmates and ODRC staff who interacted with her son, apart from
records that contained that information. Complaint, pp. 25, 26, 28. Those requests are
not enforceable under R.C. 149.43. I therefore recommend that the court deny relief on
those requests.
***
{¶40} In sum, I recommend that the court resolve requester’s production claims by
ordering:
1. ODRC to (a) produce the body worn camera recordings from the employees
present during the events occurring between July 7 and 23, 2024 described in
Ms. White’s requests that have not already been produced and to (b) make an
affirmation that no other recordings of those events shot from body worn
cameras exist.
2. That any additional recordings produced be redacted to obscure materials
covered by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(jj), R.C. 149.433, R.C. 5120.21, or that implicate
third parties’ statutory privacy rights.
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -11- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
3. ODRC to reproduce the 561,736 KB redacted video without the redactions
made from 2:56-3:11; 6:32-6:59; 13:09-14:01; 21:36-21:44; 22:26-22:30, and
22:56-23:26 of that video.
4. ODRC to produce pp. 4-22 and 25 of the In Camera Records.
C. Respondent did not violate R.C. 149.43(B)(3).
{¶41} Ms. White’s claim that ODRC did not provide adequate explanations of the
legal bases for its withholding and redactions implicates R.C. 149.43(B)(3). That statute
requires a public office denying all or part of a records request to explain the legal bases
for its denials, but it does not set a deadline for doing so. A public office can meet that
requirement by its filings in a case brought to enforce the requests. State ex rel. Culgan
v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor, 2024-Ohio-4715, ¶ 16; State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 2020-
Ohio-3700, ¶¶ 2-3, 11-12. ODRC did that here. Respondent’s Evidence, pp. 109-110, ¶¶
9, 10. I therefore recommend that the court deny relief on this claim.
D. Respondent unreasonably delayed its response to requester’s requests.
{¶42} R.C. 149.43(B)(1) mandates that “upon request *** a public office *** shall
make copies of the requested public record available to the requester *** within a
reasonable period of time.” (Emphasis added). A public office’s compliance with that
requirement is evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of the request. State ex
rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 2009-Ohio-1901, ¶ 10; State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State
Univ., 2018-Ohio-5108, ¶ 16. Several factors indicate that ODRC unreasonably delayed
its response to Ms. White’s requests.
{¶43} First, the delay here is longer than delays found unreasonable in other cases.
Although each delay claim turns on its own facts, some guidance is provided by similar
cases. Ms. White’s requests were first made nine months ago, in October of 2024. ODRC
has yet to fully respond to those requests, as previously discussed. That is longer than
the delays found to be unreasonable in other cases. See State ex rel. Ware v. Bur. of
Sentence Computation, 2022-Ohio-3562, ¶ 17 (10th Dist.); Jones v. Columbus Div. of
Police, 2025-Ohio-465, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.) (both surveying cases). While not conclusive,
that suggests that the delay here was unreasonable.
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -12- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶44} Second, most of the productions only occurred after litigation commenced.
Courts are more likely to find delayed production unreasonable if it occurs after
commencement of litigation. Ware, 2022-Ohio-3562, ¶ 19; State ex rel. Schumann v. City
of Cleveland, 2020-Ohio-4920, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.). That makes sense; it is difficult to justify a
delay that requires the requester, the courts, and the public office (and the taxpayers who
fund them), to expend time and money on an avoidable controversy. That is what we have
here.
{¶45} Fourth, ODRC has offered no explanation for that wasteful delay. Other
courts have held that is an indicia of undue delay. Ware, 2022-Ohio-3562, ¶ 19; State ex
rel. Clark-Shawnee Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. City of Springfield, 2024-Ohio-2483,
¶ 26 (2d Dist.). Ms. White first requested the videos at issue in October of 2024. ODRC’s
evidence indicates that prison staff did not get around to identifying responsive videos
until April of 2025. Respondent’s Evidence, p. 108, ¶ 6. ODRC offers no explanation for
that months long delay. That strongly supports a finding of unreasonable delay.
{¶46} I therefore recommend that the court find that ODRC violated R.C.
149.43(B)(1) by unreasonably delaying its response to Ms. White’s requests.
D. Requester is entitled to recover her filing fee and costs; respondent should
bear the balance of the costs.
{¶47} R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b) provides that the “aggrieved person shall be entitled
to recover from the public office *** the amount of the filing fee *** and any other costs
associated with the action[.]” Ms. White was aggrieved by ODRC’s failure to produce the
records discussed above and by its delay in responding to her requests. I therefore
recommend that she recover her filing fee and the costs she incurred in this case. I also
recommend that ODRC bear the balance of the costs of this case.
III. Conclusion.
{¶48} In light of the foregoing, I recommend the court:
A. Deny respondent’s motion to dismiss.
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -13- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
B. Order respondent to take the actions listed in the appendix to this report and
recommendation within 30 days of the entry of a judgment adopting this report
and recommendation.
C. Order respondent to file and serve an affirmation that it took those actions within
40 days of the entry of a judgment on this report and recommendation.
D. Find that respondent unreasonably delayed its response to the public records
requests underlying this case.
E. Order respondent to pay requester’s filing fee, her costs, and the balance of
the costs of this case.
F. Deny all other relief.
{¶49} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with
the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this
report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all
grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption
of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a
timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).
TODD MARTI
Special Master
Case No. 2025-00474PQ -14- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Appendix
Actions to be taken by respondent
1. Produce the body worn camera recordings from the employees present during
the events between July 7 and 23, 2024 described in Ms. White’s requests that
have not been previously produced and make an affirmation that no other
recordings of those events made from body worn cameras exist.
2. Redact any additional recordings produced to obscure materials covered by
R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(jj), R.C. 149.433, R.C. 5120.21, or that implicate third
parties’ statutory privacy rights.
3. Reproduce the 561,736 KB redacted video without the redactions made from
2:56-3:11; 6:32-6:59; 13:09-14:01; 21:36-21:44; 22:26-22:30 and 22:56-23:26
of that video.
Filed July 22, 2025
Sent to S.C. Reporter 8/14/25