Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Jefferson County Corrections Department violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Tommy L. Jones' May 28, 2002 request for "all documents pertaining to . . . Gregory F. Hilton." 1 Mr. Jones' request was directed to "Joe Pain [sic], Criminal Records Department, 730 West Main Street, Louisville, KY 40202," and forwarded to the Department's custodian of records, Debbie Metz, on June 7, 2002. 2 In her June 7 response, Ms. Metz advised Mr. Jones that "[a]ccording to [her] records, [she had] already sent [Mr. Jones] Mr. Hilton's inmate history." For the reasons that follow, we find that the Department's response may have been procedurally deficient, but was otherwise substantively correct.
We address first Mr. Jones' contention that the Jefferson County Department of Corrections failed to respond to his request within three days as required by KRS 61.880(1). For purposes of calculating the response time for the Kentucky Department of Corrections, KRS 197.025(7), as amended by the 1998 General Assembly, extended the standard three day deadline for response to five days. That statute provides:
KRS 61.880(1) to the contrary notwithstanding, upon receipt of a request for any record, the department shall determine within five (5) days after receipt of the request, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, whether the record shall be released.
The term "department" is defined in Chapter 197 as the Department of Corrections. KRS 197.010(3). Therefore, it is unclear whether this provision extends to the Jefferson County Corrections Department. Compare, KRS 197.025(1) providing that "KRS 61.884 and 61.878 to the contrary notwithstanding, no person including any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, shall have access to any records if the disclosure is deemed by the commissioner of the department or his designee to constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff, the institution, or any other person" (emphasis added), and 00-ORD-182, affirming Grayson County Jailer's denial of request for records posing a threat to security on the basis that the provision extends to jails and facilities "under the jurisdiction of the department [of Corrections]." Further, it is unclear when Mr. Jones' May 28 request was actually mailed and delivered to the Jefferson County Corrections Department. Ms. Metz responded to the request on June 7, some seven business days after the date it was ostensibly mailed. This almost certainly exceeded the standard three day response time, and, assuming arguendo that KRS 197.025(7) applies to the Jefferson County Corrections Department, may have exceeded the five day response time. We urge the Department to implement policies aimed at insuring timely responses to open records requests. 3
Turning to the substantive issue in this appeal, we note that on more than one occasion, the Attorney General has opined that a public agency is not required to produce multiple copies of the same records in response to duplicative requests. 95-ORD-105; 98-ORD-154; 99-ORD-107. Thus, at page 6 of 95-ORD-47 we observed:
We do not believe, however, that [an agency] is required to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting that request. KRS 61.872(2) provides that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records" during regular office hours or by receiving copies through the mail. Common sense dictates, however, that repeated requests for the same records may become unreasonably burdensome or disrupt the agency's essential functions. Thus, at page 6 of OAG 92-91 this office observed:
To produce . . . records once entails some inconvenience to the agency; to produce them three and four times requires a level of "patience and long-suffering" that the legislature could not have intended. Citing OAG 77-151, p. 3.
Ms. Metz indicates that she has already provided Mr. Jones with copies of responsive records. Here, as in our earlier decisions, unless Mr. Jones can explain the necessity of reproducing the same records which have already been released to him, such as loss or destruction of the records, we can see no reason why the Jefferson County Corrections Department must satisfy the same request a second time.
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 proceeding.
Tommy L. Jones, # 139869P. O. Box 479Burgin, KY 40310
Joe Payne400 South 6th StreetLouisville, KY 40202
Debbie Metz400 South 6th StreetLouisville, KY 40202
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Mr. Jones included Mr. Hilton's social security number and date of birth in his open records request. These details are omitted in deference to Mr. Hilton's privacy interests. KRS 61.878(1)(a).
2 The Department offers no explanation for the delay in forwarding Mr. Jones misdirected request.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 Additionally, we note that Mr. Jones requested all records relating to Mr. Hilton and that the Department previously disclosed only Mr. Hilton's inmate history. If the Corrections Department maintains other records relating to Mr. Hilton, it is incumbent on the Department to provide Mr. Jones with copies of all nonexempt records, upon prepayment of reasonable costs, and identify all exempt records withheld and the statutory basis for the withholding. KRS 61.880(1).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -