07-ORD-027 | KOGC

Opinion

Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Decision

This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Clerk of the Kentucky Supreme Court cannot be said to have violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Gregory Valentine's January 5, 2007, request for copies of "cumulative data" relating to "attorneys filing motions to withdraw . . . "and "defendants . . . who were either confidential informants prior to the time of their arrest or who turned state's evidence after their arrests . . . ." It is the decision of this office that 98-ORD-6, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is dispositive of the issue on appeal. In that decision, the Attorney General liberally quoted from Ex parte Farley, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 617, 624 (1978), in which the Kentucky Supreme Court held that "the custody and control of 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," and that "[r]ecords in the hands of the clerk are the records of the court." Although not statutorily obligated to do so, the Clerk of the Supreme Court notified Mr. Valentine that her office does not maintain the requested information. In so doing, she went above and beyond her duty. Because the Open Records Act does not govern records of the court, the Clerk cannot be said to have violated the Act in any regard.

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.

Gregory Valentine

Susan Stokley Clary, ClerkOffice of the ClerkSupreme Court of KentuckyRoom 209, State Capitol700 Capital AvenueFrankfort, KY 40601-3488

LLM Summary

The decision finds that the Clerk of the Kentucky Supreme Court did not violate the Open Records Act in handling a request for certain judicial records, as these records are not subject to the Act. The decision relies on precedent set by 98-ORD-006, which established that records in the custody of the court clerk are considered records of the court and are thus exempt from the Open Records Act. The Clerk also informed the requester that the specific data requested was not maintained by her office, which was considered going beyond her duty.

Support Our Work