Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Administrative Office of the Courts is not bound by the provisions of the Kentucky Open Records Act, and therefore cannot be said to have violated the Act by failing to respond to Anthony Mattingly's open record request for "a copy of my Court Net file during May till December of 2004." We believe that 98-ORD-6, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling, and that the rule announced in Ex Parte Farley, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 617 (1978) is applicable to both criminal and civil proceedings.
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 also
York v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 815 S.W.2d 415 (1991); KRS 26A.200 and KRS 26A.220; and 94-ORD-105.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Administrative Office of the Courts did not violate the terms and provisions of the Kentucky Open Records Act. Mr. Mattingly must seek redress for his grievance through the court system, as the records he seeks are subject to the control and direction of the Kentucky Supreme Court.
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 proceedings.