Skip to main content

Opinion

Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Decision

At issue in this appeal is whether the Fulton Circuit Court Clerk violated the Kentucky Open Records Act by initially failing to respond upon receipt of the request submitted by James Hughes for a copy of pages 11-12 of his case history. Upon receiving notification of Mr. Hughes' appeal from this office, Sarah Johnson, Fulton Circuit Court Clerk, acknowledged that she received Mr. Hughes' request and explained that she had been "waiting on an order denying his motion to vacate to mail with the two pages of the case history. " As of August 21, 2007, the date of her written response, Mr. Hughes' case history was 11 pages; to her credit, Ms. Johnson was mailing page 11 to Mr. Hughes that day. 1 Nothing more is required.

Because records in the custody of circuit court clerks are properly characterized as court records, which are not governed by the Open Records Act, rather than public records within the meaning of KRS 61.870(2), the Attorney General has long recognized that circuit court clerks are not subject to the provisions of the Open Records Act. Consequently, the Fulton Circuit Court Clerk cannot be said to have violated the Act by initially failing to respond upon receipt of Mr. Hughes' request as would otherwise be required by KRS 61.880(1). In our view, 98-ORD-6, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling on the facts presented.

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.

James Hughes, # 188889

Sarah Bing JohnsonFulton Circuit Court Clerk P.O. Box 198Hickman, KY 42050

Footnotes

Footnotes

1 Because Ms. Johnson provided Mr. Hughes with a copy of any existing record which is responsive to his request, any related issues would be moot per 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6 even if she was required to comply with provisions of the Act.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LLM Summary
The decision concludes that the Fulton Circuit Court Clerk did not violate the Kentucky Open Records Act by initially failing to respond to a request for specific pages of a case history. This conclusion is based on the characterization of records held by circuit court clerks as court records, not public records, and thus not governed by the Open Records Act. The decision follows the precedent set in 98-ORD-006, which is directly applicable to the facts of this case.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
James Hughes
Agency:
Fulton Circuit Court Clerk
Type:
Open Records Decision
Lexis Citation:
2007 Ky. AG LEXIS 285
Cites:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.