Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Sarah Ellen Eads Adkins,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Department of Corrections ("DOC") violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of Chris Hawkins's March 13, 2019, open records request. We conclude the record on appeal does not contain sufficient information for this office to resolve the factual dispute between the parties regarding the disparity between records which have been provided and those sought but not provided.
On March 13, 2019, Appellant submitted an open records request for his "updated and official Resident Records card. " DOC responded and provided the requested record. Appellant initiated this appeal on April 2, 2019, claiming that the record he received "doesn't even make sense" and that there is a separate official record not provided to him. On March 29, 2019, DOC responded that this is in fact the correct Resident Record card that has been verified.
Appellant continues to assert that the provided record is not what he requested. DOC's response to this office advised that it has provided all records responsive to his request. With respect to factual disputes of this nature between a requester and a public agency, the Attorney General has consistently recognized:
This office cannot, with the information currently available, adjudicate a dispute regarding a disparity, if any, between records for which inspection has already been permitted, and those sought but not provided. Indeed, such is not the role of this office under open records provisions. It seems clear that you have permitted inspection of some records [the requester] asked to inspect, and that copies of some records have been provided. Hopefully[,] any dispute regarding the records here involved can be worked out through patient consultation and cooperation between the parties.
03-ORD-61, p. 2, (citing OAG 89-81, p. 3).
The record on appeal does not contain sufficient information for this office to resolve the factual dispute between the parties regarding the disparity between records which have been provided and those sought but not provided. Accordingly, the parties should continue to consult and mutually cooperate to resolve any differences or misunderstandings related to the requested records.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.