Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of Ramey-Estep Holmes, Inc. (REH) relative to the request of Steven Farmer for the minor child's "ID Number" violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we find that REH's response, that a request for information does not fall within the scope of the Act and that it is foreclosed from releasing records containing the requested information by operation of the Order entered by the Bracken Juvenile Court on March 24, 2005, did not violate the Act.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and the letter of appeal, Leigh Gross Latherow, attorney for REH, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Latherow advised:
As an initial matter, the request made by Steven Farmer pursuant to the Open Records Act is not a request for a document, but is a request for information. Consequently, the request does not fall within the scope of the Open Records Act.
More importantly, however, the request was denied to Mr. Farmer based on his proclaimed intention to use the ID number to contact the child at school. Sometime prior to the letter of March 17, 2005 Mr. Farmer contacted the undersigned at her office and requested he be provided the minor child's "ID number" so that he could contact her at school.
Pursuant to the Order of Bracken District Court dated February 18, 2005 (copy attached) the Court ordered Ramey-Estep to "intercept, screen, monitor, or divert all mail, e-mail, telephone calls, and other communications between N. F. and Steven Farmer." (Emphasis in the original.) Consequently, providing Mr. Farmer with this number would violate the Court's February 18, 2005 Order. Additionally, by order dated March 24, 2005 (attached), Ramey-Estep, Homes Inc., was prohibited from disclosing any records or reports relative to the education, treatment and placement of N. F. at Ramey-Estep by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. To the extent that Mr. Farmer intends to use this identification number to contact her or to obtain information that would be in violation of the Court's Order the request was denied.
We find that REH is foreclosed from releasing records containing the requested information by operation of the Bracken Juvenile Court Orders entered on March 24, 2005, which provides:
Ramey Estep High School and Ramey Estep, Inc. shall not disclose, in any manner, records or reports to Steven Farmer relative to the education, treatment and placement of [N. F.] at Ramey Estep by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.
This office has consistently recognized that the Open Records Act does not supercede an order of confidentiality entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. See OAG 89-22; OAG 91-121; OAG 92-119; 94-ORD-139; 05-ORD-066. Consistent with this line of authority, we find that REH is required to adhere to the Bracken Juvenile Court Order in deference to the judicial process and that the records containing the requested information cannot be released by REH to Mr. Farmer unless and until the Order is lifted. 05-ORD-066. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act. 1
Moreover, this office has consistently recognized that a request for information, as opposed to a request for specific documents, need not be honored under the Open Records Act. See, for example, 97-ORD-182. To the extent that the request asked a question, it was a request for information as distinguished from a request to inspect reasonably identified documents. Mr. Farmer's request for the minor child's "ID Number" is a request for information, rather than a request for specific documents, and thus does not fall within the scope of the Act. Accordingly, REH was not statutorily obligated to honor the request.
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.
Steven FarmerP.O. Box 603Dyersburg, TN 38025-0603
Jay JohnsonCustodian of Records2901 W. Pigeon Roost RoadP.O. Box 39Rush, KY 41168-0039 Leigh Gross LatherowVan Antwerp, Monge, Jones & Edwards, LLP1544 Winchester Avenue, Fifth FloorAshland, KY 41101
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 It is unclear whether REH responded to Mr. Farmer's request in writing. To the extent it did not, it constitutes a procedural violation of KRS 61.880(1).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -