The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving public records requests, affirming a lower court's decision regarding a complaint filed by Brian M. Ames against the Regional Income Tax Agency Board of Trustees (RITA). The court's decision, issued on June 23, 2026, clarifies the obligations of public offices in responding to records requests and the limits of judicial authority in such matters.
The ruling impacts how public records are requested and the responsibilities of public agencies in Ohio, particularly regarding the production of documents and the handling of requests that may not be straightforward. This case serves as a reminder of the legal framework surrounding public records and the rights of citizens to access government information.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Brian M. Ames, the appellant, and the Regional Income Tax Agency Board of Trustees, the appellee. RITA is a regional council of governments that administers municipal tax ordinances for its member municipalities. In February 2025, Ames submitted a public records request to RITA, seeking specific records related to the rules for notifying the public about meetings as required by Ohio law.
Ames's request included several categories of records, but he specifically disputed RITA's response to his request for the rules regarding notification of meetings for the years 2023, 2024, and 2025. RITA initially did not respond to Ames's email request because it was sent to an inactive email address. After several follow-ups, Ames served RITA with a certified notice of complaint, which prompted RITA to respond with the requested documents the day after Ames filed his mandamus action.
After receiving the documents, Ames argued that RITA's response was insufficient and filed a mandamus action in the Eighth District Court of Appeals. He sought a writ ordering RITA to provide the records he requested and also sought statutory damages. The Eighth District granted summary judgment to RITA, ruling that Ames's request was moot because RITA had provided the requested records.
The Ruling
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth District's decision, stating that Ames's request for a writ of mandamus was moot because RITA had supplied the records after Ames filed his complaint. The court noted, "A public office has no duty to furnish records that are not in its possession" and emphasized that RITA was not required to create new documents to satisfy Ames's request. The court also pointed out that Ames's arguments essentially sought a declaratory judgment about the compliance of RITA's bylaws with the law, which is outside the jurisdiction of a court of appeals.
The court further clarified that a public office must respond to records requests but is not obligated to provide records that do not exist or to create new documents. The ruling stated, "When responding to a public-records request, a public office has no duty to furnish records that are not in its possession." This reinforces the idea that public agencies are only required to provide existing documents and not to alter their practices or create new records.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for public records requests in Ohio. It underscores the limitations of what public agencies must provide and clarifies that if a public office responds to a request with existing documents, the request may be deemed moot, even if the requester believes the response is inadequate. This decision may influence how individuals approach public records requests in the future, as it reinforces the idea that agencies are not required to meet specific expectations regarding the content or format of the documents provided.
The ruling also serves as a reminder for public agencies to ensure that they have clear procedures for handling records requests to avoid similar disputes. It highlights the importance of proper communication and record-keeping to facilitate transparency and accountability in government operations.
What's Next
The decision by the Ohio Supreme Court is final, and there are no indications that Ames plans to appeal further. Details regarding any related cases or future actions by Ames were not available in the court filing.