Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Sanitation District No. 1 violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Greg Trout's June 23, 2015, request for "actual copies or histories of all monthly water and sewer bills for the previous twelve (12) months for Saint Elizabeth Edgewood Saint Elizabeth Ft. Thomas . . . ." We find that SD1 improperly relied on KRS 61.878(1)(a) because the withheld records were aggregate bills for multiple-user entities.
On June 25, 2015, SD1 Records Coordinator Tina Graham denied Mr. Trout's request. Relying on KRS 61.878(1)(a) and 96-ORD-176, she asserted that disclosure of the records "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. " Several months later, Mr. Trout initiated this appeal.
In its supplemental response, SD1 expanded on its privacy argument. The agency argued that the information sought "would reveal nothing about SD1's conduct, whether the agency is serving the public good, the right of citizens to be informed as to what their government is doing, or subject SD1 action to public scrutiny in any meaningful way."
In 09-ORD-196 the Office of the Attorney General expressly modified 96-ORD-176 to the extent the latter open records decision failed to distinguish between multiple user entities as opposed to individual residential customers. We assigned the same privacy interest to multiple user entitles, in that case the Kroger Company and the Martek Company, and individual customers reasoning that billing information could be "used to infer a particular lifestyle. " 96-ORD-176. The Office revisited the same issue in 09-ORD-196, concluding that, with respect to multiple user entities, in that case Ephraim McDowell Regional Hospital, Centre College, and Central Kentucky Ambulatory Surgery Center, billing records did not identify the water and sewage usage of specific individuals but was instead aggregate data from which no particular lifestyle could be inferred. The privacy interests of multi-user entities was, we concluded, significantly reduced and must therefore yield to the public interest in ensuring appropriate application and enforcement of billing rates.
Applying this analysis to monthly bills for Saint Elizabeth Edgewood and Saint Elizabeth Ft. Thomas, we reach the same conclusion. These hospitals, both multi-user entities, must be assigned a reduced privacy interest insofar as particular lifestyles of individual customers cannot be inferred from their aggregate usage bills. The public's interest in ensuring uniform billing practices is substantial and overrides these entities' reduced privacy interests. We find that 09-ORD-196, a copy of which is enclosed, is dispositive of the issue in this appeal and rely on the reasoning it contains in full.
Either party may appeal this decision 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.