Court Opinion

ID: 9734389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:33:31.095761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.382397
License: Public Domain

WINE, Judge,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
I concur with the majority that the blanket redaction of the descriptive portions of the billing records was improper. I further concur with that portion of the opinion which finds the trial court appropriately found the Administration could have submitted for an in camera review any portions of the billings it believed to be privileged.
However, I do not believe the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney fees, having found the Administration willfully withheld portions of the records without first submitting those questioned portions to the trial court. Contrary to the majority opinion, this practice is neither novel nor is its availability limited. KRS 61.882, enacted in 1976 and subsequently amended in 1992, clearly allows for this practice.
KRS 61.882(3) provides:
In an appeal of an Attorney General’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 Attorney General’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. The court on its own motion, or on motion of either of the parties, may view the records in controversy in camera before reaching a decision. Any non-compliance with the order of the court may be punished as contempt of court.
(Emphasis added).
Failing to follow this recognized procedure unnecessarily delayed the production of information to which the Appellee was entitled and unnecessarily increased the cost to obtain that information.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court in toto including the award of attorney fees.