Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General as an appeal by Danny Hina in connection with his open records request for a copy of the tape of his Probation Revocation Hearing, indictment no. 96-CR-00017, in the Lyon Circuit Court.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Hina states that he has made numerous requests to Pamela R. Faughn, Lyon Circuit Court Reporter, for this tape and she has denied his requests.
After receipt of a "Notification to Agency of Open Records Appeal," Ms. Faughn provided this office with a response to Mr. Hina's letter. She stated that she is the Official Court Reporter for the 56<th> Judicial Circuit, which includes Caldwell, Livingston, Lyon, and Trigg Counties. In that capacity, she served as the court reporter at Mr. Hina's Probation Revocation Hearing in the Lyon Circuit Court. She stated she had previously provided Mr. Hina with a copy of the transcript of that proceeding, but denied his request for a copy of the tape of the proceeding as the tape was made as a backup to her stenographic notes and to assist her in the preparation of the transcript of the hearing.
We are asked to determine whether the actions of the court reporter were in violation of the Open Records Act.
This office has consistently recognized that records of the courts are not governed by the Open Records Act. In Ex Parte Farley, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 617, 624 (1978), the Kentucky Supreme Court held "that the custody and control of the records generated by the courts in the course of their work are inseparable from the judicial function itself, and are not subject to regulation." See York v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 815 S.W.2d 415 (1991); KRS 26A.200 and KRS 26A.220; and 94-ORD-105.
Records, made and prepared by the court reporter in performing her duties as the Official Court Reporter of the Lyon Circuit Court, are clearly records of the court. It is, therefore, the decision of the Attorney General that the Lyon Circuit Court Reporter has not violated the Open Records Act, as records of the courts are not subject to the terms and provisions of that Act. It is for the courts, and not this office, to determine which policies evinced by the Open Records Act present interference with the orderly conduct of its business, and which policies it will accept as a matter of comity. Simply stated, disputes relating to access to court records must be resolved by the courts. 98-ORD-6.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.