Request By:
Gregory Ward Butrum
Jacinta Scruggs
Michael Meeks
Annale E. Renneker
Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Michelle D. Harrison,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Gregory Ward Butrum initiated this Open Records Appeal by letter dated May 7, 2017, challenging the disposition by the Louisville Metro Government ("LMG") of his wife, Racheal Butrum's April 28, 2017 (after normal business hours) , request for correspondence, specifically, "[a]ll records of HR memorandums . . . . all of them," between LMG employees Kate Dunn (Human Resources), John Walczak (Louisville Zoo), Kendall Boyd (Mayor's Office), and Dan Landrum (Jefferson County Attorney's Office), between February 3, 2017, and February 10, 2017. Mrs. Butrum provided the following "keywords" or search terms: "Revised Memorandum, FRAUD, COVER UP, LAWSUITS!!!" On May 4, 2017 (after normal business hours) , LMG confirmed receipt of Ms. Butrum's request on May 1, 2017, and explained that "a search for responsive records has been initiated but will require additional time." In support of the delay, LMG relied upon the "potential volume and need for review of each item." LMG expected the "process to be complete on or before 7/7/2017." Because LMG offered no additional explanation to justify a delay of two and one-half months in providing access to records generated within a one-week period between four employees, Mr. Butrum argued that its response violated the Open Records Act. 1
Upon receiving notification of Mr. Butrum's appeal from this office, Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Annale Renneker responded on behalf of LMG. Acknowledging that its original response lacked the detailed explanation required under KRS 61.872(5), LMG offered the following explanation:
The requested records are stored on LMG's server and are retrieved by a search program purchased by LMG. The program is Discovery Attender developed by Sherpa Software. To conduct a search, the user inputs the search parameters given by the requester; the program then begins scanning records within the set parameters for records that contain the search terms given. The program can only conduct one search at a time and depending on the search parameters, can take anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks to complete. Until the search is completed, LMG cannot search for other records stored on the server; this makes the records unavailable. LMG receives number open records requests and often, multiple requests on the same day. To be fair and consistent, LMG conducts searches in the order the requests are received. At the time Mrs. Butrum's request was received, there were twelve requests pending. This means that the records requested by Mrs. Butrum were unavailable until those twelve pending searches were completed.
Noting that KRS 61.872(5) also requires a public agency to provide a date certain by which the records will be available, Ms. Renneker advised that "LMG determined based on prior practice, the number of pending searches at the time of Mrs. Butrum's request, and the parameters of the pending requests that the records would certainly be available on July 7, 2017." LMG observed that programs like Discovery Attender make it easier to "search and identify potentially responsive records." However, the limit of Discovery Attender is that it can only conduct one search at a time.
Discovery Attender did not initially locate any records when LMG conducted a search; however, upon discussing the request with employees to whom the request pertained, 2 LMG determined it was necessary to conduct another search. The second search located approximately 400 potentially responsive records. At this point LMG determined there was an issue with Discovery Attender and began communicating with the vendor to resolve the issue. On May 25, 2017, the date of its appeal response, LMG provided Mrs. Butrum with some responsive records and notified her of the technological difficulties it was experiencing with its search program. LMG further advised that additional responsive records might exist. "As soon as we resolve the technology issues with our vendor, " LMG observed, "we will conduct another search and will present additional responsive records, if any, to you no later than July 7, 2017."
The agency's initial response satisfied neither KRS 61.880(1) nor KRS 61.872(5). See 14-ORD-226. A public agency such as LMG must comply with procedural and substantive requirements of the Open Records Act. More specifically, KRS 61.880(1) dictates the procedure that a public agency must follow in responding to requests made under the Open Records Act. In relevant part, KRS 61.880(1) provides that upon receipt of a request, a public agency "shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays . . . whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three (3) day period of its decision." (Emphasis added.) Public agencies cannot generally postpone this deadline. 04-ORD-144, p. 6. Just as LMG properly deemed Ms. Butrum's April 28 request, submitted after normal business hours (5:37 p.m.), received on the next business day, May 1, this office must conclude that its May 4 response, issued at 8:10 p.m. on the third business day following receipt, was issued one day late.
On May 8, 2017 (one day after the instant appeal was mailed), this office rendered 17-ORD-082 (Gregory Ward Butrum/Louisville Metro Government). There, as in this case, the failure of LMG to fully discharge its duty under KRS 61.872(5) prompted Mr. Butrum's appeal. Inasmuch as the agency's initial response to Ms. Butrum's April 28 request was identical to responses by LMG that were addressed in 17-ORD-082, the following excerpt from page 6 is equally controlling here:
Absent from all of [the] initial response[] by LMG was any reference to KRS 61.872(5), upon which it relied in delaying access (though it did invoke KRS 61.872(5) in the May 25 supplemental response of record); LMG also failed to satisfy all of the requirements of this exception to KRS 61.880(1). Specifically, KRS 61.872(5), the only provision of the Act that authorizes postponement of access to public records beyond three business days, provides that if public records are "in active use, in storage or not otherwise available," the official custodian of the public agency "shall immediately notify the applicant and shall designate a place, time, and date for inspection of the public records not to exceed three (3) days from receipt of the application, unless a detailed explanation of the cause is given for further delay and the place, time, and earliest date on which the public record will be available for inspection. " Although LMG did specify [the date] by which records would be made available, LMG did not specify which permissible reason for delay applied, if any, until after this appeal was filed. "Whether any delay beyond the statutory deadline was warranted turned on the adequacy of the [agency's] explanation." 14-ORD-226, p. 4; 16-ORD-153. The need to review and redact did not constitute a detailed explanation as "[t]he need to review and redact records pursuant to KRS 61.878(4) is an ordinary part of fulfilling an open records request. It does not, in and of itself, constitute a reason for additional delay." 15-ORD-029, p. 3 (finding a violation of KRS 61.880(1) as merely stating that records are "in use" or "in storage" does not constitute a "detailed explanation of the cause . . . for further delay"); 10-ORD-138 ("the record on appeal, being devoid of any detailed explanation for why the retrieval and redaction should take so long, does not support the [agency's] position that the delay is necessary"); 02-ORD-217; 12-ORD-227; 14-ORD-047; 16-ORD-206. Nor do "irrelevant factors, including the volume and nature of unrelated requests," constitute legitimate reasons for delay. 16-ORD-272, p. 5.
Given that LMG has acknowledged this deficiency, further discussion is unnecessary. However, "[i]n the absence of a legitimate detailed explanation of the cause for delaying access" for more than three weeks, the Attorney General must conclude, in light of existing legal authority, that Mrs. Butrum "did not receive 'timely access' to the records eventually provided [on May 25]." 13-ORD-052, pp. 6-7; 13-ORD-004 (Paintsville Utilities subverted the intent of the Act within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4) in delaying access to monthly invoices for insurance premiums for a ten-year period for a period of nine and one-half weeks); 13-ORD-053 (Library Board subverted the intent of the Act in failing to provide timely access to records pertaining to building renovations); 14-ORD-040 (City of Taylorsville both violated KRS 61.872(5) in failing to provide a detailed explanation of the cause for delay and identify a specific date when requested invoices would be produced and subverted the intent of the Act under KRS 61.880(4) in delaying access for nearly two months); 15-ORD-141.
As of May 25 LMG was experiencing technical difficulties beyond its control and was actively working to resolve those issues. For this reason, the records in dispute were legitimately unavailable and its reliance on KRS 61.872(5), which it fully complied with belatedly, was justified. See 06-ORD-004 (Louisville Water Company initially violated KRS 61.872(5) in failing to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of the cause for delay but ultimately satisfied this requirement in explaining that its computer software did not allow LWC to search attachments, which forced LWC to manually review all e-mails in order to ensure that a complete response was given); compare 14-ORD-196 (inefficiencies of agency's mail routing system did not excuse its failure to comply with procedural requirements of the Act). It remains unclear why another six weeks (approximately) would otherwise be required, even allowing for any inherent deficiencies of the software program that LMG utilizes, 3 or assuming that related technical issues are still not resolved, to provide a final response given that Ms. Butrum specified the four employees whose accounts would have to be searched and the specified time frame was only a week. Compare 17-ORD-082 (seven broadly framed requests with multiple search terms, etc., four of which Ms. Butrum submitted on the same day). Assuming that LMG promptly releases the additional responsive documents, if any, to Mrs. Butrum, this office has no basis upon which to find that LMG has violated the Open Records Act beyond the noted procedural deficiencies.
Either party may appeal this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court per KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General must be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes