Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Anthony Casey appeals Oldham County Attorney John K. Carter's handling of Mr. Casey's May 19, 2015, request for "the case number to any possible criminal investigation from a complaint filed by the Department of Corrections' Roederer Correction Complex or any law enforcement agency that may have investigated the matter and filed a criminal complaint against [Mr. Casey] for introducing or promoting dangerous contraband into a detention facility . . . ." With the exception of the county attorney's failure to issue a timely written response, a failure that was mitigated by his then ongoing efforts to respond to an earlier letter from Mr. Casey, we find no violation of the Open Records Act.
Mr. Casey contests Mr. Carter's failure to respond to his May 19, 2015, request. Mr. Carter explains that when Mr. Casey's May 19 request arrived, he was preparing his response to a nearly identical letter from Mr. Casey dated April 28, 2015. 1 Although he did not retain a copy of his response to Mr. Casey's April 28 letter, 2 the county attorney advised in that response that "there were no proceedings or investigations in [his] office concerning [Mr. Casey] and that the matter was solely an internal investigation by State Corrections." Mr. Carter is uncertain when this response was mailed to Mr. Casey, but it may have crossed Mr. Casey's May 19 request in the mail. He acknowledges that he failed to respond to Mr. Casey's May 19 request because he believed the question posed by Mr. Casey had been fully addressed in his response to Mr. Casey's April 28 inquiry. Having acknowledged his failure to treat the May 19 letter as an open records request, and respond accordingly, we find that the Oldham County Attorney violated KRS 61.880(1) 3 but that the violation was mitigated by the extenuating circumstances he described.
Mr. Carter's ultimate disposition of Mr. Casey's request was otherwise consistent with the substantive requirements of the Open Records Act. In it, Mr. Casey requested information, namely, a case number, and not a record. See, e.g., OAG 79-547, p. 2 (recognizing 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 89-81 (determining that "[o]pen records provisions are not intended to serve as a comprehensive audit tool or as a means of commanding compilation and production of specific information"); 12-ORD-096 (reaffirming the principal that "requests for information, as opposed to requests for public records, need not be honored"). Mr. Carter properly asserted that he was not legally obligated to fulfill Mr. Casey's request on this basis.
Either party may appeal this decision 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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 The timeliness of that response is not an issue in this appeal.
2 Because the county attorney's response to Mr. Casey's April 28 request is not an issue in this appeal, we do not address the county attorney's failure to retain a copy of that response per applicable records retention requirements.
3 KRS 61.880(1) states:
Each public agency, upon any request for records made under KRS 61.870 to 61.884, shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three (3) day period, of its decision. An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld. The response shall be issued by the official custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final agency action.