Request By:
Timothy Copeland
Amy Villines
Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, 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 Webster Circuit Court Clerk is not bound by the provisions of the Kentucky Open Records Act, and therefore cannot be said to have violated the Act in its actions relative to the open records request of Timothy Copeland for a copy of all transcripts and records of the Grand Jury documents in his case, 07-CR-00002. We believe that 98-ORD-6, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling. Mr. Copeland must seek redress for his grievance relative to his request for copies of court records through the courts.
This office has consistently recognized that records of the courts are not governed by the Open Records Act. In Ex Parte Farley, 570 S.W.2d 617, 624 (Ky. 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, 815 S.W.2d 415 (Ky. App. 1991); KRS 26A.200 and KRS 26A.220; and 94-ORD-105.
Accordingly, we conclude that the actions of the Webster Circuit Court Clerk relative to Mr. Copeland's request for transcripts and records of the Grand Jury documents in his case, 07-CR-00002, cannot be said to have violated the terms and provisions of the Open Records Act, as it is not applicable to the records of the court system.
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.