Attorney General Andy Beshear issued an opinion regarding his own
office in an Open Records opinion issued on July 6, 2016.
The specificity of the request was at issue In re: Russell Carollo/Office of the
Attorney General, 16-ORD-138.
Carollo requested access to and copies of all records dating
back to January 2011 related to Deloitte, where he named specific types of
documents he was looking for, plus all other public records related to the
company. Carollo also requested the attorney general to include information that might be
considered technically exempt.
Beshear’s office responded in a timely manner, having spoken
with Carollo the previous day about IRS forms prepared by the company, but
having nothing to do with the company itself, stating the forms would not be
produced. The office also deemed newsletters that briefly mentioned that the
company was in the news were not responsive and would not be produced.
The office also refused to produce preliminary documents,
due to the statutory exemption give to those types of documents, along with
other work-product and attorney-client privilege materials.
Carollo appealed, asserting that the attorney general's office did not
identify withheld materials specifically and because no legal
exceptions were cited. The attorney general responded, stating that everything was
sufficiently specific in descriptions, and that no partial documents were
provided because the statute protects the whole document.
The opinion stated that when materials are non-responsive to an Open Records request, the public agency is not required to cite specific statutory exemptions to
justify a denial of the documents.
The two parties communicated through emails detailing the
scope of Carollo’s request, where Carollo stated the attorney general's office could exclude
the form 990s prepared by the business in question, but that Carollo wanted any
contracts between the Commonwealth and Deloitte. The office provided Carollo
with the appropriate agency for him to contact and request copies of such contracts.
Beshear affirmed the denial of the broad request by Carollo
based upon 16-ORD-082, issued at the beginning of May. Because Carollo asked
for anything in any way related to Deloitte, even though he named specific
types of documents, he left the door wide open when he requested “all public
records” that in any way identify Deloitte. The statute requires a person requesting docments to
“precisely describe” the records being requested.
No comments:
Post a Comment