Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the McCracken District Court Clerk violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in the disposition of Anton L. Thomas's request for "any and all records, statements, and documents" pertaining to a McCracken County District Court hearing that was held on September 4, 2009. On appeal, Mr. Thomas acknowledged receiving "copies of that hearing," but asserted that he was not provided with all of the responsive statements. The Clerk did not choose to respond upon receiving the notification of Mr. Thomas's appeal from this office. Because records in the custody of district and circuit court clerks are properly characterized as court records, to which the Open Records Act does not apply, rather than public records within the meaning of KRS 61.870(2), the Attorney General has long recognized that district and circuit court clerks are not subject to the provisions of the Open Records Act; consequently, the McCracken District Court Clerk cannot be said to have violated the Act relative to Mr. Thomas's request notwithstanding the alleged discrepancies between the records being sought and those provided. 1 The analysis contained in 98-ORD-6, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling on the facts presented. "Simply stated, disputes relating to access to court records must be resolved by the court." 2 98-ORD-6, p. 2.
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.
Distributed to:Anton L. ThomasGlenda Ransom
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Factual disputes concerning discrepancies between the records being sought and those provided for inspection cannot be resolved in the context of an Open Records appeal. 03-ORD-061, p. 2; 09-ORD-095.
2 To the extent Mr. Thomas is challenging the actions of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the analysis contained in 98-ORD-6 is equally controlling.