State ex rel. Corwin v. Ohio Department of Health

On May 8, 2025, Katie Corwin of the Reproductive Rights Law Institute and Case Western Reserve University (RRLI) requested records related to the licensing of the Toledo Women’s Center (TWC) from the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). Over the course of several months of correspondence, ODH asserted baseless objections to the requests, provided some responsive records, denied having additional responsive records, and ultimately admitted to never having conducted a comprehensive search for records.
Specifically, Ms. Corwin had requested emails from January 1, 2025 to May 8, 2025 sent or received by three ODH officials which reference TWC or its owner and medical director, Dr. David Burkons. On June 5, ODH Chief Legal Counsel Brianne Brown responded to Ms. Corwin denying her public records request as overbroad and as seeking attorney-client privileged communications. Ms. Brown also said Ms. Corwin “fail[ed] to request records based on the manner in which the [ODH] organizes its records.” However, Ms. Brown did

provide any information regarding how ODH does maintain its records or other information that would aid Ms. Corwin in revising her request.

Ms. Corwin made arrangements to meet and confer with Ms. Brown on July 10, and in the interim sent an updated set of records requests, extending the timeline of requested emails through July 1. On July 9, Ms. Brown unilaterally cancelled the meeting and reiterated that the request was denied and there was nothing to discuss.

Despite her denial of the requests days earlier, on July 15, Ms. Brown sent some records to Ms. Corwin and invited her to submit a revised, narrower request. Based on the provided records, Ms. Corwin requested additional records on July 18, and renewed and extended her previous requests. On July 23, Ms. Brown denied these requests on the vague basis that they were “legally insufficient” and made clear that she considered the matter closed.

As required by statute, Ms. Corwin sent a Section 149 Complaint requesting compliance. Ms. Corwin’s supervisor Jessie Hill followed up with Ms. Brown about the records requests and asked to meet and confer. Ms. Brown responded that she had provided all of the records she could find using the search terms Ms. Corwin had provided, and insissted that a proper more records request should identify the sender AND recipient AND date and time of the email, along with the subject matter discussed.
Due to this continuing refusal to produce records, Ms. Corwin issued a second Section 149 Complaint on October 24, 2025. No further records were produced.

Ohio’s Public Records Act (PRA) grants individuals the right to request public records and requires government agencies to transmit copies of those records “within a reasonable period of time,” unless the records are covered by an exception to disclosure. The PRA also imposes an obligation on the public office to maintain their records in a manner in which the public can access, and work with a requester to identify the records she seeks.

On December 3, 2025, the ACLU of Ohio and RRLI filed a Complaint for Alternative and Preemptory Writs of Mandamus against ODH in the Ohio Supreme Court. The complaint requests that ODH be ordered to produce the records requested as well as pay statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs. Respondent ODH filed its Answer on December 29. Parties now await a decision from the Court on whether it will issue a writ and proceed with the case.