The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1. 23-ORD-038 (In re: Alan Rubin / Louisville Metro Government)
Summary: Because the requester has made a prima facie case that a public record should exist, Louisville Metro Government violated the Open Records Act when it failed to explain the adequacy of its search for the record.
2. 23-ORD-039 (In re: Phillip Hamm/McCracken County Sheriff’s Office)
Summary: The McCracken County Sheriff’s Office did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for records that do not exist. However, the Sheriff’s Office violated the Act when it denied part of the request under KRS 61.872(6) without clear and convincing evidence that the request was unreasonably burdensome or intended to disrupt its other essential functions.
3. 23-ORD-040 (In re: James Hightower/Northpoint Training Center)
Summary: The Northpoint Training Center did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for protective custody hearing decisions that would pose a security threat to the Center if released. KRS 197.025(1).
4. 23-ORD-041 (In re: Rusty Weddle/Luther Luckett Correctional Complex)
Summary: The Luther Luckett Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act when it inadequately searched for records responsive to one part of a request. However, the Complex did not violate the Act when it denied a request for other requested records that do not exist. The Complex also did not violate the Act by withholding newly located records because of the requester’s inability to pay for copies.
5. 23-ORD-042 (In re: Vivian Miles/Cabinet for Health and Family Services)
Summary: The Cabinet for Health and Family Services violated the Open Records Act when it failed to adequately explain its search for records once the Appellant presented sufficient evidence calling into question the adequacy of the Cabinet’s search.
6. 23-ORD-043 (In re: Andrew Brinegar/Livingston County Clerk’s Office)
Summary: The Livingston County Clerk’s Office violated the Open Records Act when it failed to explain its denial of a request for records and made no effort to identify the proper custodian of those records it claimed not to have in its custody or control.