Baker v. Hayden, 419 P.3d 31

On Sept. 2, 2015, sheriff's deputies served a PFA at Baker's home; Baker later sought digital audio recordings of two open court hearings in that PFA matter.
Baker, not a party or counsel in the PFA case, requested the recordings from Katherine Stocks, Tenth Judicial District Court Administrator; Stocks denied the request, stating recordings were exempt under KORA and suggesting Baker obtain written transcripts.
Baker sued Stocks alleging violations of the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), common-law and constitutional access rights, and sought declaratory/injunctive relief and attorneys' fees; Stocks moved to dismiss.
The district court granted dismissal, holding the recordings were exempt under KORA via Kansas Supreme Court Rule 362, that Baker had no common-law/constitutional right to the audio, and that Baker was not entitled to attorneys' fees.
On appeal, the court concluded the case was not moot despite Stocks later providing the recordings (via discovery), and addressed whether any statute or rule specifically prohibited public access to electronic court recordings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of claim after recordings were produced	Baker: voluntary production does not moot because issue capable of repetition and of public importance	Stocks: production moots Baker's claims	Not moot — capable of repetition and raises public importance, so court reaches merits
Whether KORA exempts electronic court recordings via Supreme Court Rule 362	Baker: Rule 362 does not prohibit public access; KORA favors disclosure	Stocks: Rule 362/related rules restrict access, so recordings fall under KORA exception for records restricted by court rule	Rejected — Rule 362 is not a prohibition or restriction; no clear Supreme Court rule or statute bars disclosure
Applicability of K.S.A. 45-219(a) (media-copy limitation)	Baker: recordings are court records open under KORA, not covered by this copying limitation	Stocks: statute exempts providing copies of recordings/tapes generally	Rejected — 45-219(a) concerns copies of exhibits/media shown at meetings or as exhibits, not the court’s own proceeding recordings; it does not bar inspection
Entitlement to attorney fees under K.S.A. 45-222(d)	Baker: denial lacked reasonable basis, so fees should be awarded	Stocks: denial made in good faith and had a reasonable legal basis	Denied — no evidence Stocks acted in bad faith; question was one of first impression so her position had reasonable basis

State ex rel. Slusher v. City of Leavenworth, 285 Kan. 438 (court will not decide moot controversies)
Stano v. Pryor, 52 Kan. App. 2d 679 (voluntary cessation and standards for mootness)
State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837 (exceptions to mootness doctrine)
State v. Hilton, 295 Kan. 845 (public-importance factor for mootness exception)
Platt v. Kansas State University, 305 Kan. 122 (standard of review on motion to dismiss)
Cohen v. Battaglia, 296 Kan. 542 (pleading facts viewed in plaintiff's favor on dismissal)
Data Tree v. Meek, 279 Kan. 445 (KORA’s public-policy purpose)
Stephens v. Van Arsdale, 227 Kan. 676 (court records are generally public)
Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 275 Kan. 779 (KORA exceptions construed narrowly)
Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons, 274 Kan. 194 (construction of KORA and exceptions)
Ullery v. Othick, 304 Kan. 405 (statutory construction — plain language controls)
Harris Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore, 241 Kan. 59 (agency discretion regarding records within exceptions)