22-ORD-273
December 19, 2022
In re: Matthew Bunnell/Louisville Metro Government
Summary: The Louisville Metro Government (“Metro”) violated the
Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to issue a timely written
response to a request to inspect records. This Office is unable to
adjudicate factual disputes between the parties.
Open Records Decision
On September 28, 2022, Matthew Bunnell (“Appellant”) submitted a request
to Metro for records related to violations of Metro’s Property Maintenance Code and
zoning ordinances by property owners on a certain road in Louisville. Metro
responded with an automated response indicating the request had been received and
assigning it a log number. On November 17, 2022, having received no further
response from Metro, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Upon receiving a request to inspect records, a public agency must decide within
five business days whether to grant or deny the request. KRS 61.880(1). If the agency
denies the request, it “shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing
the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to
the record withheld.” Id. A public agency may delay access to responsive public
records beyond the five business days described in KRS 61.880(1) if such records are
“in active use, storage, or not otherwise available.” KRS 61.872(5). A public agency
that invokes KRS 61.872(5) to delay access to responsive records must also notify the
requester of the earliest date on which the records will be available, and provide a
detailed explanation for the cause of the delay.Here, Metro issued an automated response within five business days, but its
response was deficient. Metro’s response failed to indicate whether it would grant the
request, deny it, or invoke KRS 61.872(5). Thus, Metro violated the Act.
On appeal, Metro states that “all responsive records have been provided to the
[Appellant] as of November 22, 2022.” However, the Appellant claims Metro has not
provided all responsive records.1 This Office has routinely stated that it is unable to
resolve competing factual claims about whether all responsive records have been
provided. See, e.g., 22-ORD-261; 22-ORD-010; 19-ORD-083 (stating this Office cannot
“resolve the factual dispute between the parties regarding the disparity between
records which have been provided and those sought but not provided”). Accordingly,
this Office cannot determine whether Metro violated the Act by possessing but not
providing additional records responsive to the Appellant’s request.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall be notified
of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in
any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#434
Distributed to:
Matthew Bunnell
Natalie Johnson
1
As proof, the Appellant submits emails from Metro that he claims relate to properties on the same
street and are responsive to his request.