Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Taylor Payne,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP) violated the Open Records Act when it denied an inmate's request for the names of nurses and a doctor working for KSP and a medical record of the inmate's December 23, 2016, blood pressure reading. For the reasons set forth below, we find that KSP did not violate the Open Record Act when it refused to provide the names of nurses and a doctor. We decline to issue a decision regarding KSP's disposition of the request for the record of the blood pressure reading because that issue is moot since KSP has since provided that record to the inmate.
On December 22, 2016, Leonel Martinez, an inmate at KSP, requested (1) "3ch Nursing who have work in the 12L the following days, 12-17-2016, 12-18-2016, 12-19-2016, 12-20-2016, 12-21-2016, and 12-22-2016[,]" (2) "KSP-Doctor name and last name" and (3) a copy of any record of a blood pressure reading by a nurse on December 23, 2016. KSP received the request on December 28, 2016. The request was forwarded to the KSP, Medical Department which denied the request on December 29, 2016 on the basis that the request sought a compilation or list of records "that does not exist and is not expected to exist in the future."
On December 30, 2016, Martinez filed an open records appeal. This office received the appeal on January 9, 2017. In a response to that appeal, KSP stated that it properly denied Martinez's open records requests for the names of nurses and a doctor because the requests sought information, rather than specific records possessed by KSP. Additionally, KSP informed this office that upon realizing it had not fully addressed Martinez's request in its December 29, 2016, response, by letter, on January 4, 2017, KSP informed Martinez that it had erroneously failed to respond to his request and included a copy of his requested blood pressure reading free of charge. KSP attached that letter to its response to this office.
40 Kentucky Administrative Regulation (KAR) 1:030, Section 6 states: "If the requested documents are made available to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter." KSP has set forth unrefuted evidence that it provided the request record to Martinez after he filed an open records appeal with this office. Since the requested record was provided to Martinez, the issue of KSP's failure to provide the record is moot. As a result, we must decline to address the issue.
With respect to Martinez's requests for the names of nurses working in a specific location on specific days and the name of a doctor employed by KSP, we agree with KSP that the requests seek information from KSP rather than a specific record. See 08-ORD-107 (finding that a request for names and ranks of police officers involved in an incident was not a properly framed request under the Open Records Act because it sought information, rather than inspection of public records). In 95-ORD-131, we stated that:
This office has repeatedly recognized that requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. Our position is premised on the notion that "[o]pen records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request.
(emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). KSP is not required to compile a list or create a record to satisfy Martinez's request under the Open Records Act. Accordingly, KSP did not violate the Open Records Act by denying Martinez's requests for the names of nurses and a doctor employed by KSP.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court per KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General must be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.