COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 74333 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : JAN WEBB, ET AL. : JOURNAL ENTRY : Relators : AND : -vs- : OPINION : CITY OF HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, : OHIO, ET AL. : MOTION NO. 97003 : Respondents : Date of Journalization: OCTOBER 8, 1998 Character of Proceeding: WRIT OF MANDAMUS Judgment: Writ denied. Respondents' motion for summary judgment granted. Appearances: For Relators: For Respondents: JAMES L. MAJOR, ESQ. TIMOTHY G. PALUF, ESQ. Major & Associates Leader Building, Suite 410 408 West St. Clair Ave. East Sixth St. & Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1979 -2- JAMES M. PORTER, P.J.: Relators, Jan Webb and John Webb, have filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in order to compel the disclosure of public records under R.C. 149.43. The relators seek to obtain from the respondents, the City of Highland Heights and the City of Highland Heights Police Department, copies of all complaints as made to respondent City of Highland Heights Police Department, by Edward Polster and Marilyn Polster, against the relators. The respondents have filed a joint motion for summary judgment which this Court grants for the following reasons. The relators, through their complaint for a writ of mandamus, allege that a request for the production of copies of the requested public records was forwarded to respondent City of Highland Heights Police Department on September 15, 1997. A review of Exhibit A, as attached to the relators' complaint for a writ of mandamus, demonstrates that the request for the inspection and production of copies of public records was made by ordinary mail through a letter forwarded to an unnamed individual employed by respondent City of Highland Heights Police Department. The respondents, however, possess no legal duty to respond to a request for the production of public records as made by mail. State ex rel. Fenley v. Ohio Historical Society (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 509; State ex rel. Nelson v. Jones (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 438; State ex rel. Finnerty v. Custodian of Records, Strongsville Police Dept. (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 569; State ex rel. Larkins v. Kovacic (May 5, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64780, unreported. Thus, as a matter of law, the -3- relators have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See State ex rel. Peeples (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 559; State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106. In addition, a review of the affidavit as attached to the respondents' motion for summary judgment indicates that the requested records, to the extent that they exist, have been supplied to the relators. The relators, in response to the respondents motion for summary judgment, have not provided this Court with any evidentiary material which demonstrates that the respondents have failed or refused to produce copies of all documents that exist. State ex rel. Mayrides v. City of Whitehall (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 203; State ex rel. Fant v. Sykes (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 18. R.C. 149.43 does not require that the respondents create documents which do not exist. State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters(1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376. The relators' request for a writ of mandamus is thus moot. State ex rel. Fant v. Flaherty (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 426. Accordingly, we grant the respondents' joint motion for summary judgment. Relators to bear costs. Writ denied. O'DONNELL, J., and MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR. .