CERTAIN PRIVACY INTERESTS THAT MAY BE PROTECTED BY LAW, EVEN IF NOT SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN THE STATUTES OF THE STATE, THE COURT NOTED:
"BY REFERENCE TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN RECORDS ACT DEALING WITH SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE EXEMPTIONS WHERE THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION POSSESSED BY A PUBLIC BODY MAY BE DAMAGING TO AN INDIVIDUAL . . . SUCH A BALANCE IS CLEARLY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF BOTH THOSE FURNISHING INFORMATION AND THOSE SEEKING ITS DISCLOSURE . . .
IN ORDER THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHOSE INTERESTS ARE AFFECTED BY A REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE UNDER THE OPEN RECORDS ACT MIGHT EFFECTIVELY ACT TO PROTECT THOSE INTERESTS IT IS NECESSARY THAT SUCH INDIVIDUAL HAVE NOTICE OF THE REQUEST . . . IT WOULD APPEAR APPROPRIATE THAT SUCH NOTICE BE GIVEN IN WRITING . . . (AND) SHOULD INFORM THE INDIVIDUAL OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT WRITTEN OBJECTION TO RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION THE INDIVIDUAL MUST SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE PUBLIC BODY REGARDING THE INFORMATION REQUEST . . ."
IN RULING ON A REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE THE PUBLIC BODY . . . MUST CONSIDER THAT, PURSUANT TO THE INTENT OF THE OPEN RECORDS ACT, DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IS TO BE FAVORED OVER A FINDING OF EXEMPTION.
ID., AT PP. 553-555.
IN ESSENCE, THE COURT HAS DECLARED THAT EVEN WHERE THE ACT OR OTHER STATE LAW DOES NOT FACIALLY PROVIDE FOR AN EXEMPTION, IF THE PERSONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS OF A PERSON WOULD BE AFFECTED BY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF REQUESTED INFORMATION, A PUBLIC BODY MUST TAKE IT UPON ITSELF TO BALANCE THE COMPETING INTERESTS AND DETERMINE IF RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED. WHERE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH AN INFORMATION REQUEST IS POSSIBLE, SUCH AN APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN.
51 O.S. 24A.5(1) NOTES THAT THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY INFORMATION REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL, INCLUDING RECORDS PROTECTED BY A STATE EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGE. EXTENSIVE PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGES ARE SET FORTH IN 12 O.S. 2503 (1981), ALL OF WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT UPON YOUR QUESTION.
I CANNOT SAY, AS A MATTER OF PURE LAW, WITHOUT ANY RELATED INFORMATION BEING AVAILABLE TO ME FROM SOME GIVEN FACTUAL SITUATION, THAT THE RELEASE OF A PATIENT'S NAME IN ANY GIVEN CASE WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO A BREACH OF A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. HOWEVER, A COMMUNICATION IS CLEARLY DEEMED PRIVILEGED IF NOT INTENDED TO BE DISCLOSED TO THIRD PERSONS, EXCEPT PERSONS NECESSARY TO FURTHER THE INTEREST OF THE PATIENT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2503. IN MANY INSTANCES, I FEEL THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD FIND THAT INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS DID NOT TRULY INTEND THEIR RECEIPT OF MEDICAL TREATMENT TO BE FREELY TRANSMITTED TO ANY THIRD PARTY REQUESTING INFORMATION ALSO INCIDENTALLY CONTAINING PATIENT NAMES. SIMILAR, EVEN MORE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF PATIENT NAMES ARE ALSO CONTAINED IN 63 O.S. 1918(B) (1987).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS MY LEGAL OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION MAY, IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, DELETE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM ITS DOCUMENTS