Baker v. Hayden, 313 Kan. 667

Background

Linus Baker requested digital audio recordings of two public district-court hearings (involving his adult daughter) from the Tenth Judicial District's records custodian; his request was denied and he was offered paid transcripts instead.
Baker filed a pro se suit under the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees, alleging a de facto policy of denying access to audio recordings.
During discovery the Attorney General's office produced the two requested recordings to Baker as discovery responses (stating production was not an admission), after which the district court dismissed Baker's claims as exempt and moot.
The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding the recordings are subject to KORA and that the case was not moot; the records custodian petitioned the Kansas Supreme Court limited to two statutory-rule issues.
The Kansas Supreme Court sua sponte examined jurisdiction and standing, later concluding Baker lost traditional standing after receiving the recordings and dismissing the appeal without deciding the KORA merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether KORA requires district courts to make audio recordings of open proceedings available for public inspection	Baker: KORA broadly grants any person the right to inspect public records, including audio recordings; Rule 362 and K.S.A. 45-219(a) do not bar inspection	Records custodian: Rule 362 and K.S.A. 45-219(a) exempt or limit disclosure/copying of audio recordings	Not reached on the merits—appeal dismissed for lack of standing after Baker received the recordings
Whether Baker retained traditional standing after the requested recordings were produced in discovery	Baker: He still has a concrete stake because the district maintains a policy denying public access and he may be subject to future denials (pattern/practice)	Records custodian: Production mooted Baker’s specific claim; no ongoing individualized injury	Court: Baker failed to show the requisite likelihood of future injury or other live interest; he lost traditional standing and thus the court lacked jurisdiction
Whether the Court of Appeals properly treated the case as not moot under capable-of-repetition/public-importance exceptions	Baker/Ct. of Appeals: Issue is capable of repetition and of public importance; production of two recordings does not resolve the policy question	Records custodian: Production mooted Baker’s specific requests and forecloses relief	Supreme Court: Did not apply mootness exceptions because it concluded jurisdiction was lacking due to loss of standing
Whether Baker’s claim for attorney fees (and his pro se status) preserved appellate jurisdiction/standing	Baker: Attorney-fee claim could preserve a live controversy and provide a hook for appellate review	Records custodian: Baker did not press a fee-based standing argument; pro se attorneys often cannot recover fees	Court: Did not resolve fee recoverability; Baker failed to invoke or develop this argument so it could not sustain standing here

Key Cases Cited

Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107 (2014) (standing is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time)
Sierra Club v. Moser, 298 Kan. 22 (2013) (traditional standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (federal standing test: injury, causation, redressability; injury must be particularized)
Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes specific FOIA requests from pattern-or-practice claims and sets test for standing for prospective relief)
Willis v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 273 Kan. 123 (2002) (attorney-fee inquiry can bear on injunctive/declaratory relief and standing under KORA)
State ex rel. Stephan v. Harder, 230 Kan. 573 (1982) (KORA's disclosure mandate is broad; public need not show purpose for inspection)
State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581 (2020) (Kansas treats mootness as a prudential doctrine with limited exceptions)