Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Green River Correctional Complex violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in the disposition of John Alstatt's April 20, 2012, request for "one (1) copy from the Medical Department of the blood test that was taken in April of this year and the address." GRCC responded in a timely manner and provided Mr. Alstatt with "13 pages" of "lab results" but declined his request for the address of LabCorp. Upon receiving notification of Mr. Alstatt's appeal from this office, Assistant Counsel Linda M. Keeton, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of GRCC, noting that Mr. Alstatt's "request for an address is a request for information rather than a request for records" and was therefore properly denied. Citing KRS 61.872(3)(b), Ms. Keeton correctly observed that prior decisions of this office, such as 00-ORD-07, 02-ORD-88, and 07-ORD-065, have recognized "that requests for information are outside the scope of" the Open Records Act and public agencies do not have to honor such requests under existing law. According to GRCC, an inmate such as Mr. Alstatt "can request addresses from his or her caseworker. Ms. Morgan provided Mr. Alstatt the name of the company; he can now decide whether he wants to pursue the matter by contacting the CTO (Classification and Treatment Officer) assigned to him." Because GRCC provided the requested copies to Mr. Alstatt, in a timely manner, and properly denied his request for information, the agency maintained that its disposition of his request was proper. Based upon the following, this office agrees.
Early on, this office clarified that "[t]he purpose of the Open Records Law is not to provide information, but to provide access to public records which are not exempt by law." OAG 79-547, p. 2; 04-ORD-144. Accordingly, the Attorney General has consistently held that "requests for information as opposed to requests for specifically described public records, need not be honored." 00-ORD-76, p. 3, citing OAG 76-375; 04-ORD-080. The analysis contained in 08-ORD-181 is controlling on this issue; a copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Simply put, GRCC is not statutorily required to honor a request which is properly characterized as a request for information such as Mr. Alstatt's request for the specified address. 1 See 12-ORD-077.
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:
John D. Alstatt, # 178107Jackie Morgan, OSA IILinda M. Keeton
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 In 08-ORD-181, the Attorney General also reiterated that although public agencies must, in the alternative, generally make any existing non-exempt records that may contain the information being sought available for inspection, KRS 197.025(2) authorizes correctional facilities to deny a request by an inmate unless the record(s) contains a "specific reference" to him. See note 2. As in that decision, KRS 197.025(2) provides an alternative basis for denial.