Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;James M. Herrick,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Kentucky State Police ("KSP") violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of a request made by attorney J. Clark Baird for copies of all records relating to his client Teron Cox or an address. For the reasons that follow, we find no violation of the Act.
In his request dated June 1, 2016, Mr. Baird requested copies of "any and all records for Teron Cox (DOB ...) and any and all records for 4040 College Heights Drive, Madisonville, KY 40431." On June 6, 2016, KSP Custodian of Records Emily M. Perkins replied in pertinent part:
Your request is denied pursuant to KRS 61.872(3)(b), which states that the requestor must precisely describe the records sought.
The requester must describe the materials sought with enough specificity to allow the agency to identify and locate the records. Further, in the Attorney General's opinion 99-ORD-14 it states: [A] request for any and all records which contain a name, a term, or a phrase is not [a] properly framed open records request, and generally need not be honored. Such a request places an unreasonable burden on the agency to produce often incalculable numbers of widely dispersed and ill-defined public records.
Mr. Baird appealed to this office on June 9, 2016, arguing that he "did not actually request records that 'contain' the name Teron Cox" but "requested records on the individual Teron Cox."
On June 17, 2016, KSP Staff Attorney Supervisor Perry R. Arnold responded to the appeal, stating as follows:
The Appellant sent a written request for "any and all records for Teron Cox (DOB ...) and any and all records for 4040 College Heights Drive, Madisonville, KY 42431." No time parameters were given as to the records for either Mr. Cox or the address listed. No other criteria were given to allow KSP to discern what matter or matters were being referenced. In response, the Open Records Custodian of KSP cited to KRS 61.878(3)(b) as the reason for denying the request. In applicable part that statute says: "The public agency shall mail copies of the public records to a person ? after he precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the public agency. "
KSP, nor any other state agency, should be required to respond to an open records request as broad as the one the Appellant submitted here. If the Appellant had refined his request in any particular way to identify which records were being requested, the agency would have had an opportunity to adequately respond to the request. As it was, the statute permits denial of the records.
Thus, KSP argues that it is unable to identify and locate the records based on the information in the request.
With regard to requests to receive copies by mail, KRS 61.872(3)(b) provides, in pertinent part:
The public agency shall mail copies of the public records to a person whose residence or principal place of business is outside the county in which the public records are located after he precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the public agency.
(Emphasis added.) "[T]he primary purpose of the [Open Records] Act is making records available for public inspection? If a requester cannot describe the documents he wishes to inspect with sufficient specificity there is no requirement that the public agency conduct a search for such material." 95-ORD-108. "A request must be specific enough so that a public agency can identify and locate the records in question." OAG 89-8. "A description is sufficiently precise for purposes of records access by mail if it describes the records in definite, specific, and unequivocal terms." 98-ORD-17 (internal quotation marks omitted). See generally Com. v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655 (Ky. 2008).
This standard of precise description for records by mail is generally not met by what has been described as the "open-ended any-and-all-records-that-relate type of request." 08-ORD-058. Thus, in 00-ORD-79, we found that a request for copies of "[a]ny and all records related to the granting of easements by the City of Indian Hills to its property owners for the purpose of connecting to any MSD sewer line ? from January 1, 1990 to January 1, 1999" was properly denied for lack of a precise description:
Mr. Mabry provided information that the number of properties that received easements was small and limited the timeframe of his records request. However, he did not identify the records that he wanted copied in definite, specific, and unequivocal terms. Unless he can describe the records he seeks with precision, the City is not obligated to search through its records for "any and all" records that may relate to his request.
The request here gave no more precise a description than was given in 00-ORD-79. Furthermore, we find no meaningful distinction between records "on" an individual and records containing that individual's name.
In 13-ORD-077 (copy attached), we found that a request by an attorney for all KSP records referring to his client did not particularly describe the records within the meaning of KRS 61.872(3)(b). We incorporate the reasoning in that decision, and the authorities cited therein, as a basis for our decision in the present appeal. Accordingly, we find that KSP did not violate the Open Records Act by requiring greater specificity.
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 proceedings.