Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Kentucky Labor Cabinet violated provisions of the Open Records Act in the partial denial of Thomas J. Leksan's request for the Cabinet's entire file in its investigation pertaining to United Producers, Inc. Inspection # S0093-02/305362485. For the reasons that follow, and based on the authorities cited, we affirm the Cabinet's partial denial of Mr. Leksan's request.
By letter dated November 5, 2003, Margaret Goodlett Miles, paralegal with the Cabinet, partially denied Mr. Leksan's request, advising in relevant part:
The releasable information from the file is enclosed. The preliminary worknotes and correspondence with private individuals are exempted from release pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) to wit: correspondence with private individuals; and preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended. Also, any information identifying employees contacted and/or interview statements has been removed pursuant to KRS 338.101(1)(a).
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Leksan initiated the instant appeal challenging the Cabinet's refusal to release the entire file. In his letter of appeal, he indicated that he represented Herman Williams, Co-Administrator of the Estate of John Eric Williams, deceased, who had died at the United Producers, Inc. facility in Paris, Kentucky and would like to inspect the entire file to aid him in his investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of John Eric Williams.
We are asked to determine whether the Cabinet's partial denial of Mr. Leksan's request constituted a violation of the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the Cabinet could properly withhold portions of the investigative file under authority of KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) and the information identifying employees contacted and/or interview statements pursuant to KRS 338.101(1)(a), in tandem with KRS 61.878(1)(l).
Among the public records that may be excluded from public inspection in the absence of a court order authorizing inspection are those identified at KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) as:
Preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency.
Preliminary recommendations and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended.
It is well settled that an occupational safety and health compliance officer's worknotes generated in the course of an investigation of a work site, and containing preliminary drafts of possible citations, along with the compliance officer's observations and opinions, may properly be withheld under authority of KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j). OAG 92-90; 92-ORD-1441; 93-ORD-38.
It is equally well settled that employee interview statements that were obtained by a compliance officer under authority of KRS 338.101(1)(a), and that are located in the investigative file, are excluded from the mandatory disclosure provisions of the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l). The latter provision authorizes agencies to withhold "[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly." KRS 338.101(1)(a) provides:
(1) In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the commissioner or his authorized representative shall have the authority:
(Emphasis added.) This office has construed the term "question privately" to extend protection to any statements thus obtained. OAG 82-192; 92-ORD-1441; 98-ORD-190. We believe that these decisions are dispositive of the appeal before us. Any information identifying employees contacted and/or interview statements may be withheld from disclosure pursuant to KRS 338.101(1)(a), in tandem with KRS 61.878(1)(l). We therefore conclude that the Cabinet's partial denial of Mr. Leksan's request did not violate the Open Records Act.
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.
Thomas J. Leksan1000 Tri-State Building432 Walnut StreetCincinnati, OH 45202
Margaret Goodlett MilesParalegal Kentucky Labor Cabinet1047 U.S. 127 South, Suite 4Frankfort, KY 40601
Kembra Sexton TaylorGeneral CounselKentucky Labor Cabinet1047 U.S. 127 South, Suite 4Frankfort, KY 40601