Request By:
Bobby Chestnut, # 124460
Western Kentucky Correctional Complex
374 New Bethel Road
Fredonia, KY 42411Ellen Cockeham
Custodian of Records
Western Kentucky Correctional Complex
374 New Bethel Road
Fredonia, KY 42411Emily Dennis
Department of Corrections
Office of General Counsel
2439 Old Lawrenceburg Road
P.O. Box 2400
Frankfort, KY 40602-2400
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 Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC) properly responded to Bobby Chestnut's open records requests of April 9 and April 10, 2003 for records from his inmate file. We acknowledge that, based on prior decisions of this office affirming public agency denial of nonspecific requests for personnel records and inmate files, the WKCC responded in good faith that it is not obligated to honor a nonspecific request for records from an inmate file or to make a determination as to which documents contained in the file are exempt and nonexempt. However, in 03-ORD-012, this office reversed this long line of decisions and held a request for the complete personnel records of two school district employees was sufficiently specific and the school district was obligated to review the requested personnel files and disclose all nonexempt records contained in the files. Accordingly, we find that the holding in 03-ORD-012 extends to inmate files and, thus, that Mr. Chestnut's requests were sufficiently specific to require the WKCC to respond to his requests. In addition, it was obligated to identify and withhold those documents for which statutory protection exists from the requested inmate file and to provide him with a written explanation including citation to the statute authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1); 03-ORD-012.
Mr. Chestnut's April 9th request asked for an "entire copy of my inmate file excluding any documents that would be considered confidential. Specifically beginning with date of entrance into the Department of Corrections in October 1996 until the current date." Citing KRS 61.872(2), the WKCC denied the request stating it was too broad and overly vague and advised Mr. Chestnut that he must describe the record with reasonable particularity, so that the requested records could be identified.
On April 10th, Mr. Chestnut submitted a subsequent request identifying the types of documents he was requesting and a general request for any and every document in his file. He further indicated he disagreed with the WKCC's position and interpretation of the law and would be filing an appeal. By letter dated April 10, 2003, Mr. Chestnut initiated the instant appeal to this appeal.
After receipt of Notification of the appeal, the Department of Corrections provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In support of its position, the Department stated in part:
KRS 61.872(2) provides as follows: "(a)ny person shall have the right to inspect public records. The official custodian may require written application, signed by the applicant and with his name printed legibly on the application, describing the records to be inspected. " (emphasis added). In OAG 92-56, this Office held a custodian of records properly advises an inmate that he must request specific documents in his institutional file. A request for all "nonconfidential parts" of the file is a blanket request which need not be honored. Id . See also OAG 85-88. Even though KRS 61.871 permits the "free and open examination of public records, " as a precondition to inspection, a requesting party must identify documents he or she wishes to review with "reasonable particularity. " 03-ORD-040; 94-ORD-12.
Because of our recent decision in 03-ORD-012, copy enclosed, we conclude the responses of WKCC to Mr. Chestnut's requests were inconsistent with the Open Records Act.
In 03-ORD-012, this office departed from a long line of Attorney General decisions that held that public agencies are not obligated to honor a nonspecific request for a personnel record or inmate files, or to determine which documents within the record are exempt and which are nonexempt and held that a request for the complete personnel records of two school district employees was sufficiently specific and that the school district was obligated to locate their records, review their records, and disclose all nonexempt documents in their records to the requester. We further held that the school district was obligated to identify and withhold those exempt documents for which statutory protection exists from the requested personnel records and provide the requester with a written explanation including citation to the statute authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1). In explaining our rationale for this departure, we stated:
As noted above, the Attorney General has consistently held that as a precondition to inspection, a requesting party must identify the records to be inspected with sufficient specificity to enable the agency's custodian of records to identify and retrieve the records. Thus, "where the records sought are of an identified, limited class, the requester satisfied this condition". 92-ORD-1261, p. 3. The records to which Ms. Deatrick requested access consisted of a limited class, to wit personnel records, and were identified by name, to wit Billie Buell and Vincent Savatgy. It cannot be persuasively argued that the District's custodian could not identify and retrieve these records based on this description. This being the case, we find that it was incumbent on the District to "separate the excepted and made the nonexcepted material available for examination." KRS 61.878(4). To suggest that discharge of this statutory duty was more difficult because the records sought were located in employees' personnel files, as opposed to the wide range of files and possible file locations implicated in our example above, defies logic. We therefore find that a request for access to a personnel file requires no greater degree of specificity than any other open records requests, and that the agency must therefore "determine what is and is not subject to Open Records." Pursuant to KRS 61.878(4), the agency must disclose the nonexcepted records and identify, in writing, any responsive records withheld, site the statute(s) authorizing the withholding, and briefly explain how the statute applies to the record withheld.
03-ORD-012, p. 7.
Accordingly, based upon 03-ORD-012 and the reasoning therein, WKCC should provide Mr. Chestnut with access to those records in his inmate file which are not exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1) or other applicable statutes. For records in the inmate file for which statutory protection from disclosure exists, the agency should identify those documents and provide a brief written explanation including citation to the statute authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1); 03-ORD-012.
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.