Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG), Division of Community Corrections violated the Open Records Act in its handling of Michael G. Gideon's open records request for the certain documents and information from the Fayette County Detention Center.
On June 28, 2000, Mr. Gideon submitted an open records request for the following documents and information:
1. Name of the officer that was assigned to monitor the camera on said floors.
2. Names of officers assigned to said floors at said time.
3. Names of trainees assigned to said floors at said time.
4. Names of all Kitchen personnel, officers, and trustees (inmates) that were assigned to work in kitchen on said date and time.
5. Names of trustees assigned to said floors on said date and times.
6. Copy of o/c spray log as, mandated by law, on said date and times. (all information)
7. All incident reports filed by Lt. K. Johnson from 1-1-99 thru 12-30-99.
8. Copy of disciplinary hearing minutes/transcript on incident that occurred 10-9-99 with Michael G. Gideon, and action taken.
9. Copies of all disciplinary write ups on Michael G. Gideon.
10. Copy of log in infirmary 10-9-99 at 10:00pm to 12:00pm.
11. Copy of operations manual.
12. Copy of local training curriculum for new guards to advance and obtain permanent position on staff at fayette county detention center.
13. Copy of the annual canteen account report for 1999.
Responding on behalf of the agency, Glenda H. George, Corporate Counsel, denied Mr. Gideon's request for items 1 through 8 and 11 through 14. Relying on KRS 197.025(2), Ms. George stated that the Division of Corrections was not required to honor requests of inmates for jail records unless the records specifically relate to the inmate. She indicated that from the face of Mr. Gideon's request it appeared that items 9 and 10 related to him. However, she advised Mr. Gideon that, in reviewing prior open records requests made by him, he had been provided copies of the documents requested in items 9 and 10. In denying the request for items 9 and 10, she stated that the Open Records Act does not require public agencies to respond to duplicative requests unless the requester can explain the necessity of reproducing the same records that have been released.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Gideon explained that he had been injured in the Detention Center while confined there and his request for records was to obtain information as it may relate to an action in federal court that had not reached the discovery stage and was an attempt to speed up the discovery process.
As authorized by KRS 61.880(2), Ms. George provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. Elaborating on her previous response, Ms. George explained, in relevant part:
In his original request, Mr. Gideon did not state how the listed records related to him, a fact noted in the letter he received from the Department of Law. The only reason Mr. Gideon gives for access to these documents is that he has filed suit and wants to "speed up the discovery process. " The Urban County Government has not been served with any lawsuit involving Mr. Gideon, and, if it is sued, will respond to any discovery requests as part of that suit. At this point, however, the documents he has requested do not "specifically pertain" to him. 99-ORD-199 at p. 3, quoting 99-ORD-161. The Urban County Government correctly responded to Mr. Gideon's request in denying access to documents which do not relate to him.
We are asked to determine whether the response of the LFUCG, Division of Community Corrections violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the response of the agency was proper and in accordance with the Act and prior opinions of this office.
KRS 197.025(2) provides:
KRS 61.872 to the contrary notwithstanding, the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, unless the request is for a record which pertains to that individual.
In construing this provision, the Attorney General has observed:
KRS 197.025 underwent significant revision in the 1998 legislative session. [The provision] now limits an inmate's access to records which do not pertain to him or her. While there may be occasions when we are presented with a close [question], [we will defer to the correctional facility's judgment when the records obviously do not pertain to the inmate] . To hold otherwise would open the door to . . . tenuous claims thereby subverting the intent of the recent enactment.
98-ORD-150, p. 3. Thus, an inmate is restrained from inspecting, or receiving copies of, records which do not pertain to him. In 95-ORD-121, we recognized that KRS 197.025 applied to a county jail.
Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we are not inclined to substitute our judgment for that of the Division of Community Corrections, in interpreting and implementing KRS 197.025(2). The decision to deny Mr. Gideon access to the records identified in his request turns not on the existence of ongoing litigation, but on the presence of an independent statute, KRS 197.025(2), restricting his access to records that do not pertain to him. We find no error in the denial of these requests.
With respect to duplicative requests for items 9 and 10, the Attorney General has stated that an agency is not "required to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting the request." 95-ORD-47, p. 6. Unless Mr. Gideon can explain the necessity of reproducing the same records that have already been released to him, such as loss or destruction of the records, we can see no reason why the agency must satisfy the same request a second time.
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.