NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.


In the Supreme Court of Georgia



                                                           Decided: August 13, 2024


                       S24G0198. MILLIRON v. ANTONAKAKIS.

       LAGRUA, Justice.

       We granted certiorari in this case to decide two issues: first,

whether the Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq., applies to

records held by an individual who is employed by a public agency

and who also performs services for that agency as a private

contractor where the records sought relate to that individual’s

services as a private contractor for the agency; and second, if the

Open Records Act does apply to such records, whether an open

records request can be sent directly to the private contractor or must

instead be sent to the agency or the agency’s open records officer,

assuming one has been designated. For the reasons that follow, we

conclude that the Open Records Act applies to such records, and

while we agree with the Court of Appeals that an agency may
designate an open records officer upon whom all written open

records requests to the agency must be made, see OCGA § 50-18-71

(b) (1) (B), 1 we conclude that, even when such an officer has been

designated by an agency, a request for public records related to a

private contractor’s services to a public agency can be served upon

non-agency custodians of the relevant public records—including the

private contractor if he or she is the custodian of the records

sought—and the Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.

See Milliron v. Antonakakis, 

, 125 (1) (

) (2023). See also OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B) (“A request made

pursuant to this article may be made to the custodian of a public

record orally or in writing.”).       We therefore reverse in part the

judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s granting

of the motion to dismiss and remand the case to the Court of Appeals

with direction to remand to the trial court for further proceedings.



                        —————————————————————
      1 The pertinent portion of OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B) provides that “[a]n

agency may, but shall not be obligated to, require that all written requests be
made upon . . . a duly designated open records officer of an agency.”
                                          2
     At the center of this action is an open records request Ryan

Milliron sent to Respondent Manos Antonakakis, a professor

employed by the Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”),

seeking records related to Antonakakis’s purported services to

Georgia Tech—a public agency—as a private contractor.             As

summarized by the Court of Appeals, the relevant facts are as

follows:

     [O]n July 10, 2022, Milliron submitted an Open Records
     Act request to Georgia Tech. On the same day, Milliron
     sent an Open Records request for the same information to
     Antonakakis, individually, by emailing Antonakakis’s
     personal counsel. In this separate request, Milliron
     demanded a search of “any . . . privately held email
     account likely to have agency records[,]” but nonetheless
     acknowledged that “the appropriate course of action
     would be to transfer the [requested material] to Georgia
     Tech for processing through their Open Records staff.”
     Antonakakis did not individually respond to Milliron’s
     request in his personal capacity, but Georgia Tech did
     respond and produced documents. Unsatisfied with the
     documents received from Georgia Tech, Milliron filed suit
     against Antonakakis in his individual capacity, seeking to
     force him to personally respond to the Open Records
     request and independently produce documents directly to
     Milliron.

Milliron, 369 Ga. App. at 121-122 (1).

                                    3
     In Milliron’s complaint against Antonakakis, Milliron alleged

that Antonakakis performed work for Georgia Tech as both an

employee and a private contractor, and that, in Antonakakis’s

capacity as a private contractor, he had possession of public records

he was required to produce to Milliron under the Open Records Act.

In furtherance thereof, Milliron contended that Antonakakis was

the “founder and owner” of two companies, Notos Technologies, LLC

and Voreas Laboratories, Inc. (the “companies”), which were

allegedly formed by Antonakakis “for the purpose of receiving

funding from the federal Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency (DARPA) to carry out work for Georgia Tech’s benefit” and/or

to perform other services “with, for, and on behalf of Georgia Tech.”

Milliron asserted that, while performing these services for Georgia

Tech, Antonakakis and the companies “prepared and maintained or

received records,” including “documents related to Georgia Tech

business,” for “storage or future governmental use,” and these

documents were considered “public records” under the Open Records


                                    4
Act. Milliron further asserted that he submitted written open

records requests to Georgia Tech’s designated open records officer

and Antonakakis’s personal legal counsel2 in July 2022, seeking,

among other materials, public records related to DARPA, “the Alfa

bank allegations,” and emails Antonakakis allegedly sent to or

received from certain individuals using his private email account

that concerned business related to Georgia Tech and/or the

companies.

      Prior to filing an answer and before discovery commenced in

this case, Antonakakis moved to dismiss Milliron’s complaint for

failure to state a claim under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6).3 As grounds


                        —————————————————————
      2 Milliron asserts in his briefing that he sent the open records request to

Antonakakis’s personal attorney, as opposed to Antonakakis directly, because
the attorney instructed him to do so. (Referencing emails between Milliron and
Mark E. Shamel, Esq., attached as Exhibit 1 to Milliron’s Affidavit, filed in the
trial court on October 6, 2022.)
       3 Antonakakis also moved for “reasonable attorney’s fees and other

litigation costs reasonably incurred” pursuant to OCGA § 50-18-73 (b), which
provides in pertinent part that,
       [i]n any action brought to enforce the provisions of this chapter in
       which the court determines that either party acted without
       substantial justification either in not complying with this chapter
       or in instituting the litigation, the court shall, unless it finds that
       special circumstances exist, assess in favor of the complaining
                                          5
for dismissal, Antonakakis asserted the following: (1) he was not an

“agency” subject to production under the Open Records Act; (2) while

agency employees may individually possess public records, agency

employees do not have to personally respond to public records

requests; (3) agencies are the only proper party for producing public

records, even when a private person possesses such records; (4)

Milliron’s complaint was moot because he submitted the same open

records request to Georgia Tech—the “responsible state agency”—

and Georgia Tech “communicated and worked with” Antonakakis to

“identify, collect, and produce responsive records” in full as required

under the Open Records Act; and (5) Milliron did not allege that

Georgia Tech “improperly redacted or omitted any documents from

that production.”

     In Milliron’s response to Antonakakis’s motion, he argued that

he had received materials from outside sources related to

Antonakakis’s service as a private contractor for Georgia Tech,

                     —————————————————————
     party reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs
     reasonably incurred.
                                     6
including two emails purportedly sent from or received into

Antonakakis’s personal email account, which were not turned over

by Georgia Tech or Antonakakis. Milliron also filed a request for the

trial court to stay any ruling on Antonakakis’s motion until

discovery could be conducted in this case, and in support thereof,

Milliron filed his affidavit attaching, among other things, email

correspondence he exchanged with Antonakakis’s personal attorney

and documents he received from Georgia Tech in response to his

open records request.

     Following a hearing, 4 the trial court granted Antonakakis’s

motion to dismiss on November 4, 2022.5 In dismissing the

complaint, the trial court rejected any argument that a public or

state employee is “directly and personally obligated to provide public

records” under the Open Records Act, concluding that OCGA § 50-



                       —————————————————————
     4  Milliron elected not to include a transcript of this hearing in the
appellate record.
      5 The trial court also held that Antonakakis was entitled to reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs under OCGA § 50-18-73 (b) and subsequently awarded
him $53,874.51 in fees without holding an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
                                        7
18-70, et seq. obligates only agencies to produce records, not

individual employees of those agencies. The trial court also

concluded that Georgia Tech had designated “an open records

officer” as “the custodian of agency records” upon whom open records

requests must be made, and as such, Milliron’s request directly to

Antonakakis, rather than the proper designated officer, was

improper. Milliron appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of

Appeals.

     The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of

Milliron’s complaint, concluding that “Milliron’s contention that the

trial court improperly dismissed his action fails because his Open

Records request was not properly submitted.” Milliron, 369 Ga. App.

at 123 (1).   In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals

explained that the Open Records Act authorizes agencies to

designate an open records officer to whom record requests must be

submitted and noted that “Georgia Tech ha[d] a designated Open

Records officer,” which was “neither Antonakakis nor his personal


                                     8
attorney.” Id. at 124-125 (1) (citing OCGA § 50-1-71 (b) (1) (B)). The

Court of Appeals determined that, because, “under the plain terms

of OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B), Milliron’s request for documents sent

directly to Antonakakis was not properly submitted, [ ] the trial

court correctly determined that the faulty request [was] not a viable

means to support Milliron’s action for an injunction” and “properly

dismissed his case.”6       Id. (citing OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (3) (“The

enforcement provisions of [OCGA] 50-18-73 and 50-18-74 shall be

available only to enforce compliance and punish noncompliance

when a written request is made consistent with this subsection and

shall not be available when such request is made orally.”)).

      We granted Milliron’s petition for certiorari and asked the

parties to address whether, when a private contractor performs

services for a public agency, the Open Records Act applies to records

held by the private contractor related to those services, and if so,

                        —————————————————————
      6 The Court of Appeals also determined that the trial court erred “by

failing to hold a hearing on [Antonakakis’s] attorney fees prior to entry of the
award” and remanded the case “in order for the trial court to hold an
evidentiary hearing on Antonakakis’s fees request.” Id. at 126, 128 (3).
                                          9
whether such a request can be submitted directly to the private

contractor or must be submitted to the agency. See OCGA § 50-18-

70 (b) (1) (B) and (2).

     1. Records held by a private contractor related to his or her
        services for a public agency are subject to the Open Records
        Act.

     When     we    are   presented   with   questions   of   statutory

construction, “we must afford the statutory text its plain and

ordinary meaning, we must view the statutory text in the context in

which it appears, and we must read the statutory text in its most

natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the English

language would.” Smith v. Northside Hospital, Inc., 

(1) (

) (2017) (citing Deal v. Coleman, 

, 172-

173 (1) (a) (

) (2013)). “[A]s we have said many times

before when interpreting legal text, we do not read words in

isolation, but rather in . . . the context of the [statute] as a whole.”

Camp v. Williams, 

 (2) (b) (

) (2022)

(citation and punctuation omitted).


                                      10
     In enacting the Open Records Act, the General Assembly

declared that

     the strong public policy of this state is in favor of open
     government; that open government is essential to a free,
     open, and democratic society; and that public access to
     public records should be encouraged to foster confidence
     in government and so that the public can evaluate the
     expenditure of public funds and the efficient and proper
     functioning of its institutions.

OCGA § 50-18-70 (a). The General Assembly further stated that

“there is a strong presumption that public records should be made

available for public inspection without delay,” and that “[t]his article

shall be broadly construed to allow the inspection of governmental

records.” Id.

     Within this framework, the General Assembly established

that, with a few exceptions, “[a]ll public records shall be open for

personal inspection and copying,” OCGA § 50-18-71 (a), and will

include

     all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes,
     photographs, computer based or generated information,
     data, data fields, or similar material prepared and
     maintained or received by an agency or by a private

                                     11
     person or entity in the performance of a service or
     function for or on behalf of an agency or when such
     documents have been transferred to a private person or
     entity by an agency for storage or future governmental
     use.

OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (2). See also Smith, 

 (1). The

Open Records Act uses the definition of “agency” provided in the

Open Meetings Act, which defines the term as “[e]very state

department, agency, board, bureau, office, commission, public

corporation, and authority,” among other definitions. OCGA § 50-

14-1 (a) (1) (A). See also OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (1).

     As the plain language of the statute makes clear, records

prepared or maintained by a private contractor “in the performance

of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency” are “public

records” under the Act, and this is so even if the private contractor

separately works as an employee of an agency. OCGA § 50-18-70 (b)

(2). See also Smith, 

 (1) (explaining that, if

records are “prepared and maintained or received by” a private

person or entity “in the performance of a service or function for or on


                                     12
behalf of” an agency, they are “public records” subject to the Act).

On this much, the parties agree.

     The trial court, however, concluded that the records Milliron

sought directly from Antonakakis were not subject to the Open

Records Act—a ruling which the Court of Appeals did not address

and essentially pretermitted on appeal. See Milliron, 369 Ga. App.

at 125 (1) n.7.    And the trial court apparently reached this

conclusion, in part, by rejecting Milliron’s allegation that, in

addition to being an employee of Georgia Tech, Antonakakis also

performed services for Georgia Tech as a private contractor. We

granted certiorari on this issue because it is a preliminary question

that must be decided before turning to the question of to whom

requests may be made under the Open Records Act.

     First, to the extent the trial court determined that

Antonakakis worked for Georgia Tech only as an employee and not

as a private contractor, the trial court erred in doing so. Milliron

alleged in his complaint that Antonakakis performed services for


                                    13
Georgia Tech as a private contractor, in addition to being an

employee of the university, and on a motion to dismiss, the trial

court must accept these factual allegations as true. See Norman v.

Xytex Corp., 

 (1) (

) (2020) (in ruling on

a motion to dismiss, the trial court is required to “take the

allegations in the complaint as true and resolve all doubts in favor

of the [plaintiff]”). And, to the extent the Court of Appeals affirmed

the trial court’s dismissal of Milliron’s complaint on the same basis,

the Court of Appeals made the same error.

     Moreover, while the trial court did not explicitly address

whether, if Antonakakis were a private contractor for Georgia Tech,

the records he possessed as part of that contract would be “public

records” subject to the Act, the plain language of OCGA § 50-18-70

(b) and decisional law interpreting it clearly establish that records

“prepared and maintained or received” by a private contractor “in

the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency”

are “public records” under the Act. OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (2). See


                                     14
also Smith, 

 (1) (holding that “[r]ecords of [a] private

company related to” work the company provided to an agency

pursuant to a contract with the agency “would be public records

under the Act”). Accordingly, to the extent the trial court concluded

otherwise, it erred in doing so. See OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (2).

     2. A request for public records can be submitted directly to the
        custodian of the records, even if the custodian is a private
        contractor and even if the agency for which the private
        contractor provides services has designated an open records
        officer for receipt of open records requests.

     Having concluded that records “prepared and maintained or

received” by a private contractor “in the performance of a service or

function for or on behalf of an agency” are “public records” under the

Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (2), we must now determine

upon whom a request for such records can be made. As will be

explained below, we conclude that, even when an agency has

designated an open records officer to whom requests must be made

for public records within the agency’s custody, an open records

request can still be made to a custodian of public records outside the

agency, like here to a private contractor working for an agency. See
                                    15
OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B). In addition, actions seeking to “enforce

compliance” with the Open Records Act can be brought against such

custodians of public records. OCGA § 50-18-73 (a).

     On appeal, Milliron asserts that his open records request was

properly served on Antonakakis because Antonakakis is the

custodian of the subject records, and the Open Records Act imposes

an obligation to produce public records on every custodian of public

records—including private contractors who perform services for

public agencies.7    Antonakakis counters that the obligation to

produce public records lies solely with a public agency—not its

individual employees or private contractors—and accordingly,

requests for public records must be submitted directly to an agency.

Antonakakis further asserts that because the agency in this case—

Georgia Tech—has a “duly designated open records officer,” OCGA

§ 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B), Milliron’s open records request could have been

served only upon that officer.

                     —————————————————————
     7  Milliron also served an open records request on Georgia Tech’s
designated open records officer for records in Georgia Tech’s custody.
                                     16
     The trial court agreed with Antonakakis and concluded that,

under OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (A), only agencies are obligated to

produce public records in response to open records requests—a

conclusion the Court of Appeals did not reject. Milliron, 369 Ga.

App. at 122 (1). The trial court also determined that, where—as

here—an agency has designated an open records officer to receive

requests for public records, such requests can only be made upon

that officer—not any other custodian—to be proper and “viable,” and

the Court of Appeals affirmed that determination on appeal. Id. at

125 (1) (citing OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B)). The lower courts erred

in reaching these conclusions because nothing in the plain language

of OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B) or any other provision of the Open

Records Act dictates that only agencies—whether through a

designated officer or otherwise—can receive requests for public

records and/or are obligated to produce public records or otherwise

make such records available for review.




                                   17
     The Open Records Act provides that “[a]ll public records shall

be open for personal inspection and copying,” OCGA § 50-18-71 (a),

and to that end, the Act clearly provides that “[a] request made

pursuant to this article may be made to the custodian of a public

record orally or in writing.” OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B) (emphasis

supplied). “When, as here, statutory text is clear and unambiguous,

our interpretive task begins and ends with the text itself.” Bell v.

Hargrove, 

 (2) (

) (2021). The Act does

not define the term “custodian;” however, when the statute was

enacted, “custodian” was legally defined as “1. A person or

institution that has charge or custody of property, papers or other

valuables.” Custodian, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009).

And “custody” was defined as “1. The care and control of a thing or

person for inspection, preservation, or security.” Custody, BLACK’S

LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009). See also Cardinale v. Keane, 

, 651 (3) (

) (2022) (noting that, by using

the term “custody,” the Open Records Act “contemplates persons


                                   18
who have some level of control and care over the records being

sought”). Additionally, around the time the statute was enacted,

“custodian” was commonly defined as “one that guards and protects

or maintains, especially: one entrusted with guarding and keeping

property or records.” Custodian, NEW WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY

(2012). So, generally speaking, a “custodian” is someone who has

“custody” of a record—i.e., care and control over it. See BLACK’S

LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009). In view of these definitions, the

term “custodian” found in OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B) is expansive

enough to include anyone with the requisite care and control of

public records. And, as we just held, the Act contemplates that a

“private person or entity” working on the agency’s behalf can

prepare, maintain, or receive “public records,” OCGA § 50-18-70 (b)

(2), and under such circumstances, that person would become the

“custodian” of those records. OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B). Notably,

an action “to enforce compliance with the provisions of” the Act may

also be brought “against persons or agencies having custody of


                                   19
records open to the public.”      OCGA § 50-18-73 (a) (emphasis

supplied).

     Accordingly, the language of the Act contemplates and permits

that a request to inspect and copy public records can be made to

someone outside of an agency. This conclusion is bolstered by the

fact that, in OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B), the General Assembly used

the term “custodian,” as opposed to “agency,” in specifying the party

upon whom an open records request can be made. See id. And no

other provision in the Act states that only agencies can be custodians

of public records. That no such provision exists is further support

for our conclusion that a private contractor could be a “custodian” to

whom open record requests can be made under the Act. Id.

     While Antonakakis argues that the Open Records Act places

the obligation to produce public records on agencies alone—relying

on the language of OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (A), which provides that

“[a]gencies shall produce for inspection all records responsive to a

request within a reasonable amount of time not to exceed three


                                    20
business days of receipt of a request”—that argument is without

merit.   The General Assembly’s imposition of a time limit for

agencies to produce public records is not tantamount to a mandate

that only agencies are responsible for producing such records.

Again, private persons or entities may maintain records of their

work on an agency’s behalf, see OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (2), and “all”

public records, including those records, “shall be open” for inspection

and copying. OCGA § 50-18-71 (a). If such persons or entities are

“custodians,” then under the plain language of the Act, a request

may be made to them. OCGA § 50-18-71 (b) (1) (B).

     The only express limitation the Act provides in this context is

that, where the agency has designated an official or an open records

officer to receive “all written requests” on the agency’s behalf, a

written request to that agency must be submitted to the designated

records officer or official. Id. (providing that “[a]n agency may, but

shall not be obligated to, require that all written requests be made

upon . . . a duly designated open records officer,” among other


                                     21
officials or persons) (emphasis supplied). But the clear language of

this provision demonstrates that it only concerns written open

records requests made to an agency, seeking records that are within

the agency’s custody.       It does not speak to requests to “private

persons or entities” who prepare, maintain, or receive records of

their work on behalf of agencies. OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (2). As such,

even where an agency has designated an open records officer or

official for this purpose, a request for public records may still be

made upon other non-agency custodians of the pertinent public

records, including—potentially—private contractors who perform

services for a public agency.8 See id.

     In this case, the Court of Appeals concluded—and the parties

concede—that Georgia Tech has a designated open records officer

upon whom written open records requests to Georgia Tech should be


                        —————————————————————
     8 In cases involving records related to a private contractor’s services to a

public agency, it may well be necessary to know the specifics of the contract
between the private contractor and the agency to identify the custodian of the
records, but that is not at issue here given the allegations of the complaint,
which assert that Antonakakis is a custodian of public records within the
meaning of the Open Records Act.
                                         22
made for that agency. But the Court of Appeals concluded that,

because “Georgia Tech has a designated Open Records officer to

whom requests must be sent,” Milliron’s request for public records

could only be served upon that officer. Milliron, 369 Ga. App. at 125

(1). Given our conclusion that a request for public records can be

submitted to the custodian of those records—including, where

appropriate, a private contractor who performs services for an

agency—the Court of Appeals erred in reaching that conclusion.

Additionally, because questions remain to be determined regarding

what records may be in Antonakakis’s possession, whether those are

“public records” subject to the Open Records Act, and whether

Antonakakis is a custodian of public records in this case in his

capacity as a private contractor, a remand is required for the trial

court to make those determinations.

     Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals

affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Milliron’s complaint and

remand the case to the Court of Appeals with direction to remand


                                    23
the case to the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

     Judgment reversed and case remanded. All the Justices concur.




                                    24