Ohio Supreme Court Rules that Sheriff Did Not Violate Open Records Act and Declines to Award Damages to Prisoner
by Douglas Ankney
On November 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that Columbiana County Sheriff Brian McLaughlin did not violate Ohio’s Public Records Act (“Act”), RC 149.43 and declined to award sanctions to prisoner Terry Brown.
In August 2023, Brown requested numerous records from McLaughlin related to the Columbiana County Jail (“Jail”). McLaughlin produced only two records; declined to provide the requested records related to the Jail’s retention policy because he had previously provided those records to Brown; and explained that he did not have any further records because those records would be kept and maintained by the two previous private companies that had operated the Jail. Those two companies were Correctional Solutions Group, L.L.C. (“CSG”) and Community Education Centers, Inc./GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”).
McLaughlin suggested to Brown that he request the records from CSG and GEO. Instead, Brown petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus compelling McLaughlin to produce the requested records. The court divided Brown’s records requests into three broad categories: (1) “policy-records requests”; (2) “personnel records requests”; and (3) records documenting retention policies. The court observed that, because Brown had not sued CSG or GEO, or requested records from either of them, the court could not order either of those companies to produce the records under the Act pursuant to the court’s “functional-equivalency” caselaw. That is, while the Act generally did not apply to private entities, there is an “exception … for certain private entities that are the functional equivalent of a public office.” See: State ex rel. Harm Reduction Ohio v. OneOhio Recovery Foundation, 2023-Ohio-1547. Instead, the court relied on the limited “quasi-agency” theory.
“Under the quasi-agency theory,” the court wrote, “records held by a private entity fall within the jurisdiction of a public entity if ‘(1) [the] private entity prepares [the] records in order to carry out the 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.” See: State ex rel. Mazzaro v. Ferguson, 49 Ohio St.3d 37 (1990).
Because Brown had established that GEO and CSG had performed a “delegated public duty,” the court had issued a limited writ requiring McLaughlin “to obtain responsive records from GEO and CSG or to certify that such records did not exist.” A few weeks after the Court issued the limited writ, McLaughlin filed “a notice of compliance.” Brown then filed a “motion for contempt and sanctions,” wherein he alleged McLaughlin had defied the court’s limited writ. Brown also sought statutory damages.
The court observed that “R.C. 2705.02 provides that ‘[a] person guilty of … [d]isobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ’ may be punished.” But the court concluded that McLaughlin had not disobeyed the limited writ. Indeed, McLaughlin had submitted Brown’s records requests to CSG. And CSG’s responses indicated that either no responsive records existed or that Brown’s request was too broad in scope and would require CSG to create records. For example, Brown had requested “Policy information on ordering/issuing a mental health or psychiatric evaluation for any inmate being booked into the jail suffering from mental or psychological impairment.”
McLaughlin and CSG suggested to Brown that he narrow his policy-records request so that responsive records could be identified. But Brown did not do so. McLaughlin even invited Brown “to discuss [with the sheriff] the outstanding records being sought.”
The court concluded that there was “nothing in the sheriff’s conduct” that would lead to a finding “that the sheriff disobeyed or resisted the writ issued by this court.” The same was true of Brown’s personnel-records requests. After McLaughlin submitted Brown’s requests to GEO, GEO responded that it did not have any of the requested personnel records. McLaughlin had contacted GEO in an attempt to obtain the personnel records and McLaughlin provided GEO’s response to Brown. That was all the court’s limited writ required of McLaughlin.
And as to records related to the Jail’s retention policies, McLaughlin certified he had previously provided those records to Brown. Brown acknowledged he had received the records-retention schedule for the Sheriff’s Office, but argued there should be a separate schedule for the Jail. However, no such separate schedule existed.
Accordingly, the Court denied Brown’s request for statutory damages and denied Brown’s motion for contempt and sanctions. See: State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Jail, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5280.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login