22-ORD-275
December 21, 2022
In re: Steven Hughes/Roederer Correctional Complex
Summary: The Roederer Correctional Complex (the “Complex”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for
pictures attached to JPay emails exchanged between private parties
because they are not public records.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Steven Hughes (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex for
pictures that were attached to two specific emails he sent. In a timely response, the
Complex denied his request because it did not have custody or control of the requested
records. The Complex suggested he contact the JPay vendor and provided its
address.1 This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Complex again claims the requested records are not public
records because JPay “is an email system that is part of Securus Technologies, a
private company.” This Office has previously found that JPay emails and their
attachments exchanged between private parties are not “public records” under
KRS 61.870(2). See, e.g., 22-ORD-111; 22-ORD-021; 20-ORD-109. Only emails sent to
or from employees of the correctional facility using the JPay system are “public
records,” because such records would have been “prepared by” or “in the possession
of” the correctional facility. See KRS 61.870(2) (defining “public records”).
Additionally, JPay emails that have been seized and are being “used” by a
1
Under KRS 61.872(4), “[i]f the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or
control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name
and location of the official custodian of the agency’s public records.”correctional facility for some official purpose are public records. Id.; see also 22-ORD-
021; 21-ORD-124.
Here, the Complex claims the requested pictures are not public records, and
there is no evidence suggesting the emails were sent to or from Complex employees
or are being used by the Complex for some official purpose. Therefore, there is nothing
in the administrative record indicating that the requested pictures are “prepared,
owned, used, in the possession of or retained by a public agency” within the meaning
of KRS 61.870(2). Thus, the Complex did not violate the Act when it denied the
Appellant’s request.2
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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
#440
Distributed to:
Steven Hughes, #160574
Jonathan Gifford
2
Because the Appellant did not request any public records, it is unnecessary to consider the
Complex’s alternative argument that the requested pictures are “[c]ommunications of a purely
personal nature unrelated to any governmental function” and exempt from inspection under
KRS 61.878(1)(r).