Under a limited writ of mandamus issued by the Supreme Court of Ohio on October 17, 2024, the Columbiana County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) must obtain records from the private contractor operating the county jail and disclose them pursuant to a public records request. Sheriff Brian McLaughlin had argued that the records were in the custody of Correctional Solutions Group (CSG), which as a private firm is not subject to such a request. But the high Court called foul on that feint and ordered him to get the records and disclose them to the requester, now-state prisoner Terry Brown, or else certify within 21 days that no responsive records exist.

In August 2023, Brown submitted two public records requests to the CCSO, in care of Sheriff McLaughlin. His first request listed 10 items seeking “[e]mployees’ names and positions held while working at the Columbiana County Jail during the time period of January 1, 2017, through July 1, 2018.” Brown’s second request listed another 15 items pertaining to current “[p]olicy information on Inmate Intake/Booking and Retention of records,” to include the “booking of inmates showing signs of intoxication, impairment, injury, or psychological problems.” In both requests, Brown also sought “related records-retention policies.”

CCSO administrative assistant Scherry Wilson sent Brown a letter on September 13, 2013, in which she sent two records in response to Brown’s first request: an employee-information sheet for Sgt. Dep. Sheriff Hartley Malone and a description of his position. In response to both of Brown’s requests, Wilson sent letters asserting that the CCSO had already provided the related records-retention schedules and that the CCSO did not have any further responsive records because those records were created, kept, and maintained by CSG; those, according to Wilson, the CCSO could not access.

On September 25, 2023, Brown filed his complaint. The CCSO filed an answer, arguing Brown’s mandamus claim was moot because the CCSO had provided all responsive pleadings within its possession and that Brown should request the other records from CSG. The CCSO moved for judgment on the pleadings, but the Court denied that motion on December 27, 2023, and granted an alternative writ, scheduling the submission of evidence and briefs.

Analysis and Conclusion in the Ohio Supreme Court

The Court observed that “[m]andamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act,” citing State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. Bd. of Trs. of Ohio State Univ., 2006-Ohio-903. To obtain the writ, the Court continued, “the requester must prove by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the record and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it,” quoting State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 179 N.E.3d 60 (Ohio 2021). Importantly, it is the public office that has the duty to obtain and disclose the requested records—even if the records are in the possession of a private entity, as held in Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Trs., 170 N.E.3d 19 (Ohio 2021).

A quasi-agency test announced in State ex rel. Mazzaro v. Ferguson, 550 N.E.2d 464 (Ohio 1990), provided the framework for determining whether the records held by a private entity under contract with a public office are public records: “(1) [the] private entity prepares [the] records in order to carry out a public office’s responsibilities, (2) the public office is able to monitor the private entity’s performance, and (3) the public office has access to the records for this purpose.” More recently, in Armatas, the Court recognized that “when a requester has adequately proved the first prong of the quasi-agency test, the requester has met his burden: proof of a delegated public duty establishes that the documents relating to the delegated functions are public records.”

R.C. 9.06(A)(1) permits counties to contract with private jail administrators to operate their jails. But R.C. 9.06(B)(9) requires those contracts to provide for a contact monitor, described as “a county employee who has complete access to the jail and all records of the facilities except for the private jail administrators’ financial records.”

With this in mind, the Court explained that “private jail administrators—not the sheriff’s office—have operated the Columbiana County Jail” since January 2014, at least. Community Educations Centers, Inc./GEO Group, Inc. operated the jail between January 2014 and sometime in 2019, when CSG took over, and Malone has been the contract monitor “at all times relevant to this action.” In short, the CCSO “delegated the administration of the jail and care of the inmates to the private jail administrators for the durations of their respective contracts.”

Citing CCSO’s contract with CSG, the Court noted that “records relating to the facility and inmates are to be kept in the same manner required for county records.” Moreover, CCSO “concede[d] that the records in the possession of [CSG] are public records.” 

“To the extent that records responsive to Brown’s request exist, all those records would have been created to carry out the delegated public responsibilities,” the Court declared.

Therefore the CCSO had “a clear legal duty to obtain existing responsive records and disclose them to Brown,” the Court ruled. But because it was uncertain if any responsive records existed or which entity might have them, the Court issued the limited writ. The Court also deferred determination of any statutory damages to which Brown may be entitled until after the CCSO complied with the limited writ. See: State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Jail, 2024-Ohio-4969.  

Related legal case