Request By:
Tarell Thomas, # 246526
Cindy Yates
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 Hickman Circuit Court Clerk violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in the disposition of Tarell Thomas's October 15, 2013, request for "a copy of all trial tape(s) and/or [CD](s), audio and visually recorded of all proceedings under Case No. 10-CR-00022." Hickman Circuit Court Clerk Cindy Yates issued a written response on October 30, 2013, advising Mr. Thomas that she had "copied all court proceedings for 10-CR-22 -- there are 4 CDs -- the cost is $ 20.00/CD for a total of $ 80.00 plus postage of $ 2.90." Upon receiving notification of Mr. Thomas's appeal from this office, Ms. Yates advised that she received his request on October 21, 2013, and subsequently advised him in writing of the costs associated with copying and mailing the requested CDs. Ms. Yates further indicated that her office had "no further contact with Mr. Thomas or his family in regards to this matter until November 18, 2013," at which time Circuit Court Judge Tim Langford forwarded to her a letter that he received from Mr. Thomas in which Mr. Thomas alleged that her office had denied his family "the opportunity to procure" the requested CDs. Ms. Yates responded in writing on the same day, advising Mr. Thomas again that she would mail the CDs to him upon receipt of payment. She attached copies of all related correspondence to her November 20, 2013, appeal response.
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, the Attorney General has consistently recognized that neither district court clerks nor circuit court clerks are 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). Accordingly, the Hickman Circuit Court Clerk cannot be said to have violated the Act in the disposition of Mr. Thomas's request. The analysis contained in 98-ORD-6, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling on this issue. "Simply stated, disputes relating to access to court records must be resolved by the court." 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.