Milliron v. Antonakakis

Ryan Milliron sought records related to work Manos Antonakakis, a Georgia Tech professor, allegedly performed for Georgia Tech both as an employee and as a private contractor through two companies funded partly by a federal defense research agency. Milliron sent an open records request to Georgia Tech and a separate one directly to Antonakakis. Georgia Tech responded, but Antonakakis did not, so Milliron sued Antonakakis personally to force him to produce records. A trial court dismissed the suit, reasoning that only agencies, through their designated open records officer, have to respond to requests, and the Court of Appeals of Georgia agreed. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed. It held that records a private contractor prepares or keeps while doing work for a public agency count as public records under the Act, and that a request can go directly to whoever actually has custody of those records, even a private contractor, even when the agency has its own designated records officer for requests aimed at the agency itself. The court sent the case back for further proceedings.

Records prepared, maintained, or received by a private contractor while performing services for a public agency are public records under the Open Records Act, and a request for those records may be sent directly to whoever actually has custody of them, including the private contractor, even where the agency has designated its own open records officer for agency-directed requests.

The ruling means people seeking government records in Georgia are not limited to going through an agency's designated records officer when a private contractor, not the agency itself, actually holds the documents. This affects universities, government contractors, and anyone doing outside work for public agencies who may now face records requests and possible lawsuits directly.

Reversed in part and remanded to the Court of Appeals with direction to remand to the trial court

1. The court read the Open Records Act's plain text, which defines public records to include documents prepared, maintained, or received by a private person or entity performing a service for an agency, meaning contractor records count even if that person is also an agency employee.
2. Because a motion to dismiss requires accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true, the trial court erred by rejecting Milliron's claim that Antonakakis worked for Georgia Tech both as an employee and, separately, as a private contractor.
3. The court examined the term 'custodian,' the person with care and control over records, in the request provision (OCGA § 50-18-71(b)(1)(B)) and found it broad enough to include a private contractor who holds agency-related records, not just the agency itself.
4. The court reasoned that the statute's separate provision letting an agency designate an open records officer for written requests to that agency does not override the general rule that requests may go to any custodian, so it does not bar sending a request straight to a contractor who holds the records.
5. Applying this framework, the court concluded that Milliron's request to Antonakakis could be valid if Antonakakis actually held qualifying public records as a custodian, a factual question the trial court still needs to resolve on remand.

• Open Records Act
• Georgia Tech
• private contractor records
• public records requests
• Georgia Institute of Technology