23-ORD-045
February 27, 2023
In re: Leonel Martinez/Lee Adjustment Center
Summary: The Lee Adjustment Center (“the Center”) did not violate
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for records
that do not reference the Appellant. KRS 197.025(2). The Center also
did not violate the Act when it denied a request because of the
requester’s inability to pay for copies.
Open Records Decision
On January 18 and 19, 2023, inmate Leonel Martinez (“the Appellant”)
submitted two requests to the Center to inspect a variety of records. On January 26,
2023, having receive no response from the Center, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Upon receiving a request to inspect records, a public agency must decide within
five business days whether to grant the request, or deny the request and explain
why. KRS 61.880(1). However, this Office has consistently found that it is unable to
resolve factual disputes between a requester and a public agency, such as whether a
requester received an agency’s response to a request. See 21-ORD-233 (agency
claimed it issued a response but the requester claimed he did not receive it); see also
22-ORD-125 (agency claimed it did not receive the request); 22-ORD-100 (same); 22-
ORD-051 (same); 21-ORD-163 (same).
Here, the Center claims it received both requests on January 23 and responded
to both requests on January 27, which was the fourth business day after it received
the requests. Accordingly, this Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the
parties about when the Center received the request, and therefore, cannot find that
the Center’s response was untimely.In his first request, the Appellant sought all requests from the Americans with
Disabilities (“ADA”) Act Coordinator to have the Center’s Video Remote Interpreting
(“VRI”) equipment fixed. The second request was for “records from [the Appellant’s]
phone calls” in January 2023. On appeal, the Center states it denied the first request
under KRS 197.025(2) because the requested documents did not specifically refer to
the Appellant. The Center states it denied the second request because the Appellant
failed to provide the “appropriate money authorization” required by Corrections
Policy and Procedure (“CPP”) 6.1.1
First, under KRS 197.025(2), a correctional facility such as the Center “shall
not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in
. . . any facility . . . unless the request is for a record which contains a specific
reference to that individual.” KRS 197.025(2) is incorporated into the Act
through KRS 61.878(1)(l), which exempts from inspection public records “the
disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by
enactment of the General Assembly.” This Office has historically interpreted “specific
reference” to require a record mention an inmate by name. See, e.g., 22-ORD-087; 17-
ORD-119; 09-ORD-057; 03-ORD-150. Here, the Center states “the request is not for
a record which contains a specific reference to” the Appellant. Thus, the Center was
not required under KRS 197.025(2) to provide the Appellant a copy of the record and
it did not violate the Act when it denied his request.
Second, the Center states the Appellant’s request “lacked the required staff
signature on the authorization allowing the cost of copies to be deducted from his
inmate account.” Under CPP 6.1(II)(B)(6), “[i]f a copy of a public record is requested,
the inmate shall provide with his request a money authorization allowing the cost to
be deducted from his inmate account on the form required by his institution to allow
for payment of the cost of the copy.” Because he did not provide a completed
authorization form along with his requests, the Appellant could not complete the
transaction necessary to pay copying fees associated with his requests. Under
KRS 61.874(3), a “public agency may prescribe a reasonable fee for making copies of
nonexempt public records . . . which shall not exceed the actual cost of reproduction.”
See also KRS 61.872(3)(b) (if a requester seeks copies of records by mail, “the official
custodian shall mail the copies upon receipt of all fees”). This Office has consistently
found that a public agency is not required to provide free copies of records to an
inmate requester. See, e.g., 19-ORD-129; 18-ORD-119; 18-ORD-111; 15-ORD-006; 09-
ORD-071. Accordingly, the Center did not violate the Act when it denied a request
that did not include a completed money authorization.
1
See CPP 6.1(II)(B)(6)
https://corrections.ky.gov/About/cpp/Documents/06/CPP%206.1%20Open%20Re…-
%20Effective%207-20-2021.pdf (last accessed February 27, 2023).A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. Pursuant to 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 e-mailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#048
Distributed to:
Leonel Martinez #216925
Kristy Hale, Records Custodian
Daniel Akers, Warden
G. Edward Henry, II