Milliron v. Antonakakis

Ryan Milliron sent an open records request to Georgia Tech and, separately, to Manos Antonakakis, a Georgia Tech professor who Milliron said also worked for the university as a private contractor through two companies. Antonakakis did not respond personally, though Georgia Tech produced some documents. Unsatisfied, Milliron sued Antonakakis directly to force him to hand over records from his work as a contractor. A trial court dismissed the suit, reasoning that only agencies, not individuals, must respond to records requests, and that Georgia Tech's designated records officer was the only proper recipient. The Court of Appeals of Georgia agreed and affirmed. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed. It held that records a private contractor keeps while doing work for a government agency count as public records, and that anyone who has custody of such records, including a private contractor, can be asked directly for them, even when the agency has its own designated records officer for agency-held records. The case goes back to the trial court to sort out whether Antonakakis actually holds such records.

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 such records may be sent directly to whoever has custody of them, including the private contractor, even when the agency has designated its own open records officer for agency-held records.

The ruling means Georgians seeking government records cannot be blocked just because the records sit with an outside contractor rather than the agency itself. It clarifies that contractors and individuals who do work for public bodies in Georgia may be legally required to produce records directly to requesters.

Reversed in part and remanded with direction

1. The court read the Open Records Act's definition of 'public records' (OCGA § 50-18-70 (b)(2)) to include documents prepared, maintained, or received by a private person or entity performing a service on behalf of a government agency, not just documents held by the agency itself.
2. Because the complaint alleged Antonakakis worked for Georgia Tech both as an employee and separately as a private contractor, the trial court was wrong to dismiss the case on the theory that he only worked as an employee; on a motion to dismiss, courts must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true.
3. The court examined the term 'custodian' in OCGA § 50-18-71 (b)(1)(B), which allows requests to be made 'to the custodian of a public record,' and found dictionary definitions from around the time of enactment show a custodian is simply anyone with care and control of a record, not necessarily the agency itself.
4. The court reasoned that the Act's provision letting an agency designate an open records officer for written requests to the agency only governs requests seeking records within the agency's own custody; it does not limit who else, such as an outside contractor holding separate records, can be asked directly.
5. Because it remained unclear what records Antonakakis actually possesses and whether he is truly a custodian of public records in his contractor role, the court sent the case back to the trial court to resolve those factual questions.

• Open Records Act
• public records request
• Georgia Tech
• private contractor records
• custodian of records