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 Woodford Circuit Court Clerk violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in allegedly failing to issue a written response to Claud Stacey White's March 22, 2012, written request for a copy of the records for Case No. 90-CR-00049 "starting with item # 1 on the Docket Sheet thru item # 53." 1 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 per KRS 26A.200, 26A.220, and Ex Parte Farley, 570 S.W.2d 617 (Ky. 1978); consequently, the Woodford Circuit Court Clerk cannot be said to have violated the Act relative to Mr. White's request. On this dispositive question, the analysis contained in 98-ORD-6, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling. "Simply stated, disputes relating to access to court records must be resolved by the court." 98-ORD-6, p. 2. 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:
Claud Stacey White, # 109341Tricia Nave Kittinger
Footnotes
Footnotes