Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex ("EKCC") violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in denying Grant Hatfield's request for copies of certain medical records on or about June 11, 2012. Because the Open Records Act does not exempt indigent requesters from the requirement for payment of copying fees codified at KRS 61.874(1), this office affirms the disposition of Mr. Hatfield's request in accordance with governing authorities.
Mr. Hatfield's request, which was received on June 13, 2012, was for a copy of "[a]ll records of medications dispensed to me from 2/16/2012 to present." The records custodian's disposition, dated June 19, 2012, stated as follows:
Request denied. Per KRS 61.874 If an inmate request [ sic ] copies and his account does not contain sufficient funds to cover the copying fee DOC is not required to provide copies, not even to indigent inmates.
This response was timely under KRS 197.025(7), which allows five (5) days exclusive of weekends and legal holidays. In his appeal to this office dated June 22, 2012, Mr. Hatfield contended that no response had been made, but we can only conclude that he had not yet received EKCC's timely response.
In EKCC's response to the appeal, Linda M. Keeton, Assistant Counsel, provides a copy of EKCC's response and states that Mr. Hatfield's request was denied because he did not have sufficient funds in his inmate account to cover the copying fees. She argues: "Requiring advance payment for copies does not violate the Open Records Act; therefore, EKCC was not required to provide copies to Mr. Hatfield until he arranged for payment, which he did not do."
In our view, the reasoning contained in 08-ORD-044, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is equally applicable on the facts presented. The courts and this office have recognized the propriety of a Department of Corrections policy requiring advance payment of copying fees. In Friend v. Rees, Ky. App., 696 S.W.2d 325 (1985), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that an inmate is entitled to receive a copy of a record only after "complying with the reasonable charge of reproduction. " Accordingly, the Attorney General subsequently determined that it is "entirely proper for [a correctional] facility to require prepayment, and to enforce its standard policy relative to assessment of charges to inmate accounts ...." 95-ORD-105. While acknowledging that "this prepayment policy might work a hardship on inmates, " this office has nevertheless upheld the policy as "entirely consistent with the Open Records Act and the rule announced in Friend v. Rees. " 97-ORD-131 (quoting 95-ORD-90, p. 2). In accordance with these precedents, EKCC did not violate the Open Records Act by denying Mr. Hatfield's request despite his inability to pay for the requested copies.
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.
Distributed to:
Grant Hatfield, # 196990Sharon RoseLinda M. Keeton, Esq.