Skip to main content

25-ORD-016

January 15, 2025

In re: Nathan Hampton/Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

Summary: The Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (“the
Department”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”), when it
did not grant a request seeking information without describing public
records to be inspected.

Open Records Decision

Nathan Hampton (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Department asking
for “the identity of the man” who visited the Appellant’s home “to receive a complaint
of perjury” regarding a Department employee in 2014 and 2015. The Appellant also
requested “the identity” of the same Department employee’s “superiors from 2014 to
2016.” In response, the Department stated the Appellant had requested information,
not records, but notwithstanding this deficiency, the Department provided the
Appellant with the names of the Department employee’s superiors during the
requested period. The Department also stated it could not identify the man who
visited the Appellant’s home. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the Department maintains the Appellant requested information,
not records. The Department is correct. The Appellant requested the identities of
certain individuals. His request did not describe public records to be inspected, but
rather, sought information. See, e.g., 23-ORD-257 (denying a request for “the full
names” of correctional officers on duty at a specific time); 22-ORD-054 (denying a
request asking “who ordered” a letter to be written, how much the author was paid,
and “why” the letter “was circulated”). The Act does not require public agencies to
answer interrogatories or fulfill requests for information. Rather, it only requires
public agencies to produce extant public records for inspection. See KRS 61.872(2)(a)
(requiring a request to inspect records to include, inter alia, a description of “the
records to be inspected”); Dep’t of Revenue v. Eifler, 436 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Ky. App.2013) (“The [Act] does not dictate that public agencies must gather and supply
information not regularly kept as part of its records.”). Accordingly, the Department
did not violate the Act when it did not provide all information requested by the
Appellant because he did not describe any public records to be inspected.

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall be notified
of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in
any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.

Russell Coleman

Attorney General

/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer

Zachary M. Zimmerer

Assistant Attorney General

#511

Distributed to:

Nathan Hampton
Rich Storm
Steven Fields

LLM Summary
In 25-ORD-016, the Attorney General ruled that the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not grant a request seeking information without describing public records to be inspected. The decision cites previous opinions to affirm that the Act does not require agencies to provide information or answer interrogatories, but only to provide access to existing public records.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
Nathan Hampton
Agency:
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Type:
Open Records Decision
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.