Request By:
Mr. Thomas Jayne
Magoffin Circuit Court Clerk
P.O. Box 147
Salyersville, Kentucky 41465
Opinion
Opinion By: Chris Gorman, Attorney General; Amye B. Majors, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Gordon B. Long, Esq., has appealed to the Attorney General, pursuant to KRS 61.880, your repeated denials of his requests to inspect certain records in your custody. Although the records requested are not specifically identified, it is our understanding that Mr. Long has expressed an interest in reviewing records of cases in which he does not represent a party. It is his position that all records housed in the circuit court clerk's office must be made available for public inspection, with the exception of juvenile records, incompetency proceedings, and other records closed by the circuit judge.
Mr. Long asks that we issue an opinion stating whether your actions are consistent with the Open Records Act. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that because court records are beyond the purview of the Act, you properly responded to his requests.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Among the records which are excluded from the application of the Open Records Act, except upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction, are:
Public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the general assembly.
KRS 61.878(1)(j). KRS 26A.200 states in part that all records which are made by, generated for, or received by any agency of the Court of Justice, or by any other court or agency or officer responsible to such court are the property of the Court of Justice, and subject to the control of the Supreme Court. Moreover, KRS 26A.220 provides:
All public officers, public agencies, or other persons having custody, control or possession of the court records by statute or otherwise shall be subject to the direction of the Supreme Court with regard to such records and no such officer, agency, or person shall fail to comply with any rule, regulation, standard, procedure, or order issued by the chief justice or his designee.
Echoing these statutes, the Kentucky Supreme Court has expressly opined:
On its face, the Open Records Law, KRS 61.870-61.884, incl. (Ch. 273, Acts of 1976), appears to apply. Whether its provisions conflict with or are harmonious with KRS 26A.200-26A.220, incl. (Ch. 22, Acts of 1976 Ex. Sess.), we need not decide, because we are firmly of the opinion that the custody and control of the records generated by the courts in the course of their work are inseparable from the judicial function itself, and are not subject to statutory regulation.
Ex Parte Farley, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 617, 624 (1978).
This Office has consistently recognized that court records are outside the scope of the Open Records Act. In OAG 85-103, OAG 87-53, and OAG 90-4, we held that the disputed documents in those open records appeals were court records, and therefore not subject to the Act. Moreover, in OAG 78-262, we advised that the General Assembly has clearly placed in the hands of the Chief Justice the handling and regulation of the records of the courts.
It is therefore the opinion of this Office that your actions were consistent with the Open Records Act. The records which Mr. Long wishes to inspect are court records, and are not subject to the terms and provisions of the Act.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion will be sent to the requesting party, Mr. Gordon B. Long. Mr. Long may challenge it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) .