Court Opinion

ID: 9385563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 14:04:45.902381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.894146
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 31, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2021-CA-1463-MR

L. CHRISTOPHER HUNT                                                  APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 20-CI-00564

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
KENTUCKY LABOR CABINET                                                 APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

DIXON, JUDGE: L. Christopher Hunt has appealed from the order of the Franklin

Circuit Court upholding the partial denial of an open records request by the

Kentucky Labor Cabinet. After careful review of the record, briefs, and law, we

affirm.
          BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kentucky established the

KY-SAFER Hotline in March 2020 that allowed individuals to report violations of

Governor Beshear’s social distancing orders. These reports would allow the

Kentucky Labor Cabinet (Cabinet) to ensure compliance with these executive

orders, which in turn protect the safety of the Commonwealth.

             On April 6, 2020, the Cabinet issued an order to Fuller Physical

Therapy, owned by physical therapist Phillip Embry, to cease operation because it

was a non-life-sustaining business. The order was retracted shortly thereafter.

Three days later, attorney L. Christopher Hunt made an open records request

(ORR) to the Cabinet pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 61.870, et.

seq., formally seeking copies of the public records in its possession related to

complaints made against Fuller Physical Therapy or Embry between March 1 and

April 7, 2020, either in writing or in note form from a verbal complaint; any

document related to surveys, evaluations, assessments, reviews, or other activity

with respect to the same company and individual during the same time period; and

any documents related to any report or complaint made to the COVID-19 hotline

via telephone or the web page.

             By letter dated April 21, 2020, the Cabinet responded to the ORR,

stating that it was attaching an Excel spreadsheet including the records in its

                                         -2-
possession from the web complaint database. However, the Cabinet applied two

exemptions to the request. It redacted personal information related to the

complainant’s name, address, and contact information, pursuant to KRS

61.878(1)(a), and it withheld records related to attorney review of KY-SAFER

Hotline and local health department complaints as attorney-client privileged and

attorney work product, pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(l).

             Hunt initiated an appeal of the Cabinet’s partial denial of his ORR

with the Attorney General (AG) by letter dated May 19, 2020 (20-ORD-091).

First, he argued that the name of the complainant should be open to public

inspection, stating that this would reduce the possibility of competitors abusing the

hotline to report other businesses. Second, he maintained that if the attorneys were

assessing the complaints and deciding to issue the orders, they were not acting in

their capacities as attorneys but as decision makers. Accordingly, Hunt contends

the attorney-client privilege would be inapplicable. The AG issued his decision on

June 22, 2020. Citing to his earlier decision in 20-ORD-089, the AG first

determined that “the public interest weighs strongly in favor of disclosure of the

complainant’s name and outweighs the complainant’s privacy interest.” He noted

that “business owners were at risk of suffering real consequences without any

articulated procedural safeguards to contest or challenge those consequences.” He

then upheld the Cabinet’s withholding of records related to the Cabinet attorneys’

                                         -3-
assessments of the complaints based on attorney-client privilege. He agreed with

the Cabinet’s position and ruled that “any legal analysis undertaken by the

attorneys reviewing the complaints, their determinations regarding the merits of the

complaints, and their related communications to the Cabinet regarding that

analysis, constitute ‘quintessential attorney-client advice’ that is protected from

disclosure under [Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE)] 503.”

             The Cabinet filed a complaint and notice of appeal with the Franklin

Circuit Court on July 17, 2020, contesting the AG’s decision regarding the need to

provide the name of the complainant because it was based upon “speculative harm

with respect to actions that the Governor and [Cabinet] might [take] against

individuals who violate executive orders related to COVID-19[,]” and because it

“provides little thought as to the consequences individuals might face from

businesses and individuals who were complained against, who by violating the

Governor’s emergency declarations put the health of others at risk.” Hunt filed an

answer and counterclaim, seeking review of the AG’s decision related to the

attorney-client privilege.

             The parties filed briefs in which they set forth their respective

positions, and the circuit court entered an order on November 1, 2021, indicating

that it needed to conduct an in camera review of the disputed attorney-client

privileged documents before it could make a decision, pursuant to KRS 61.882(3).

                                          -4-
Once the review was complete, the court entered an order on November 24, 2021,

affirming the AG’s decision as to the attorney-client privilege and reversing the

decision as to disclosure of the name of the complainant. It held that the AG erred

in finding that the Cabinet had to disclose the name of the complainant who made

the complaint through the KY-SAFER Hotline. The court determined that the

information Hunt sought was of a personal nature and that the complainant’s

privacy interest substantially outweighed any public interest in disclosure. The

court noted that disclosure of identity of complainants would not reveal anything

about the Cabinet’s conduct and would not further the purpose of the Open

Records Act (ORA) to promote governmental transparency. The court observed

that to do so “would serve no purpose other than to satisfy Hunt’s curiosity about

the identity of the complainant.” As to the attorney-client privilege issue, the

court, after reviewing the tendered documents, held that they were confidential

communications between the Cabinet’s attorneys in their capacity as attorneys, not

decision makers. Therefore, the court determined that the AG had properly

concluded the Cabinet had no duty to disclose those records. Finally, the circuit

court found that the Cabinet had not willfully violated the ORA. This appeal now

follows.

                                         -5-
                           STANDARD OF REVIEW

             Our standard of review is set forth in Medley v. Board of Education,

Shelby County, 168 S.W.3d 398, 402 (Ky. App. 2004):

                    We note at the outset that the circuit court’s review
             of an [AG’s] opinion is de novo. As such, we review the
             circuit court’s opinion as we would the decision of a trial
             court. Questions of law are reviewed anew by this Court.
             When there are questions of fact, or mixed questions of
             law and fact, we review the circuit court’s decision
             pursuant to the clearly erroneous standard. Under this
             standard, this Court will only set aside the findings of
             fact of the circuit court if those findings are clearly
             erroneous. The dispositive question is whether the
             findings are supported by “substantial evidence.”
             “Substantial evidence” is evidence “that a reasonable
             mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion,”
             and evidence that, when “taken alone or in the light of all
             the evidence, . . . has sufficient probative value to induce
             conviction in the minds of reasonable men.”

                    We also note that although this Court is not bound
             by the opinions of the [AG], “they have been considered
             ‘highly persuasive.’” This Court will “give great weight
             to the reasoning and opinion expressed [by the Attorney
             General].”

(Citations omitted.) As to an appeal of a decision of the AG to the circuit court,

KRS 61.882(3) provides, in relevant part: “In an appeal of an [AG’s] decision,

where the appeal is properly filed pursuant to KRS 61.880(5)(a), the court shall

determine the matter de novo. In an original action or an appeal of an [AG’s]

decision, where the appeal is properly filed pursuant to KRS 61.880(5)(a), the

burden of proof shall be on the public agency.”

                                         -6-
                 In KRS 61.871, the General Assembly set forth the policy for the

ORA, declaring, “the basic policy of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 is that free and open

examination of public records is in the public interest and the exceptions provided

for by KRS 61.878 or otherwise provided by law shall be strictly construed, even

though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public

officials or others.” KRS 61.872(1) provides that “[a]ll public records shall be

open for inspection by any resident of the Commonwealth, except as otherwise

provided by KRS 61.870 to 61.884[.]”

                                   LEGAL ANALYSIS

                 On appeal to this Court, Hunt first argues that the trial court

erroneously determined that the Cabinet had properly withheld the name of the

single complainant who made a call concerning Fuller Physical Therapy to the

KY-SAFER Hotline. Hunt maintains that the court failed to conduct a balancing

analysis as required by the ORA. He contends the Cabinet gave no “justification

for withholding names of complainants as a privacy issue that outweighed public

interest in disclosure.”1

                 KRS 61.878(1)(a), excludes from inspection, “[p]ublic records

containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof

1
    Appellant brief, page 3.

                                             -7-
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]” Our

Supreme Court has interpreted this provision of the ORA as follows:

                   A plain reading of subsection (1)(a) reveals an
            unequivocal legislative intention that certain records,
            albeit they are “public,” are not subject to inspection,
            because disclosure would constitute a clearly
            unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

                   Judging by order, if nothing more, one might say
            that (1)(a) is the foremost exception to the disclosure
            rule. Certainly it is an independently viable exception,
            not subordinate to any other, and not restricted to
            preliminary materials or non-final matters.

                    The language of subsection (1)(a) implies a
            number of other conclusions as well. First, it reflects a
            public interest in privacy, acknowledging that personal
            privacy is of legitimate concern and worthy of protection
            from invasion by unwarranted public scrutiny. We are
            therefore spared debate (or deprived of it) on privacy as a
            matter of natural right or constitutional law. Second, the
            statute exhibits a general bias favoring disclosure. An
            agency which would withhold records bears the burden
            of proving their exempt status. KRS 61.882(3). The
            Act’s “basic policy” is to afford free and open
            examination of public records, and all exceptions must be
            strictly construed. KRS 61.882(4), supra. Third, given
            the privacy interest on the one hand and, on the other, the
            general rule of inspection and its underlying policy of
            openness for the public good, there is but one available
            mode of decision, and that is by comparative weighing of
            the antagonistic interests. Necessarily, the circumstances
            of a particular case will affect the balance. The statute
            contemplates a case-specific approach by providing for
            de novo judicial review of agency actions, and by
            requiring that the agency sustain its action by proof.
            Moreover, the question of whether an invasion of privacy

                                        -8-
             is “clearly unwarranted” is intrinsically situational, and
             can only be determined within a specific context.

Kentucky Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists and Div. of Occupations and

Professions, Dept. for Admin. v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co., 826

S.W.2d 324, 327-28 (Ky. 1992).

             While Hunt denies overreach as an invasion of a complainant’s

privacy, the Cabinet maintains releasing the identities of tipsters sheds no light on

its actions when addressing calls to the KY-SAFER Hotline and website. It further

argues that revealing the identity of the complainant herein gives Hunt no insight

into whether the Cabinet has independently investigated the complaint, nor

whether a business has been granted an administrative appeal. Consequently, the

Cabinet contends there is no public interest in knowing the identity of

complainants. Moreover, the Cabinet argues disclosure of complainants’ names

could have a chilling effect on reports of noncompliance with public health orders

and could subject them to harassment. In fact, the Cabinet offered evidence that

social media groups had attempted to post information about KY-SAFER

complainants.

             Contrary to Hunt’s argument, the trial court specifically weighed the

competing interests in its ruling. After determining the information Hunt sought

was of a personal nature, the court wrote:

                                         -9-
                         Here, disclosure of the complainant’s name would
                  reveal nothing about the Cabinet’s conduct. In fact,
                  disclosure of the complainant’s name would not further
                  the purpose of the [ORA]. As previously noted, the
                  Cabinet provided Hunt with the information contained in
                  the complaint. The information contained in the records
                  provided enabled him to understand the nature of the
                  complaint and the government’s action. Disclosure of
                  the complainant’s name would serve no purpose other
                  than to satisfy Hunt’s curiosity about the identity of the
                  complainant. Again, the purpose of the [ORA] is to
                  promote government transparency, not to satisfy the
                  curiosity of private citizens. Because the complainant’s
                  privacy interest in his or her name substantially
                  outweighs the related public interest in disclosure, the
                  Court concludes that the [AG] . . . correctly held that the
                  Cabinet properly redacted the complainant’s other
                  personal identifying information such as phone number,
                  email address, and home address. Therefore, the Court
                  holds that the Cabinet acted correctly in redacting all
                  personal identifying information of the complainant as
                  that disclosure would “constitute a clearly unwarranted
                  invasion of personal privacy” under KRS 61.878(1)(a).2

We agree with the Cabinet. It has sufficiently met its burden of demonstrating that

an improper invasion of privacy would occur were it to release the complainant’s

name herein.

                  For his second argument, Hunt contends that the Cabinet attorneys

were acting as decision makers and did not have a client. Therefore, their intra-

Cabinet communications related to KY-SAFER Hotline complaints were not

privileged and should not have been exempted from disclosure. The attorney-

2
    Trial court order, page 8.

                                             -10-
client privilege has been incorporated into the ORA, as recognized by this Court in

Hahn v. University of Louisville, 80 S.W.3d 771 (Ky. App. 2001):

                     Despite the Act’s bias in favor of disclosure, KRS
              61.878 contains a list of public records which are
              ordinarily exempt from review under the Open Records
              Act. Listed among these are “public records or
              information the disclosure of which is prohibited or
              restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of
              the General Assembly.” 61.878(1)(l). As Hahn admits,
              the protections generally afforded by the attorney-client
              privilege have been recognized and incorporated into the
              statute by the Kentucky General Assembly.

Id. at 774.

              While Hunt asserts that the reviewing attorneys were making the

decisions as to whether an order to cease operations should be issued, the Cabinet

disputes this assertion and states that the attorneys referred a complaint to an

investigator if it posed a potential violation. Here, the circuit court reviewed the

records in camera and determined that they consisted of “confidential

communication between Cabinet attorneys in their capacity as attorneys and not

‘decision makers,’ as alleged by Hunt.” We perceive no reason to question this

decision and, therefore, affirm the circuit court’s ruling that such records were

exempt from disclosure.

              Finally, Hunt argues that the Cabinet willfully violated the ORA,

entitling him to costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to KRS

61.882(5). As we have upheld the Cabinet’s decision to refuse release of the

                                         -11-
personal information of complainants, as well as all attorney-client privileged

information, we decline to further address this issue.

                                  CONCLUSION

             Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order of the Franklin

Circuit Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

L. Christopher Hunt                        Sam Flynn
Owensboro, Kentucky                        Oran S. McFarlan, III
                                           John Ghaelian
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                        -12-