23-ORD-090
April 18, 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 a record
that no longer existed within its possession at the time of the request.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Leonel Martinez (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Center for a
copy of its denial of his request to move to a different cell. In a timely response, the
Center denied his request because the requested record was discarded after the
Appellant was informed his request to move was denied. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Center again states affirmatively that the requested record no
longer exists. Specifically, the Center states that the requested record “was disposed
of after his request for a different bed placement was denied.” Once a public agency
states affirmatively that a record does not exist, the burden shifts to the requester to
present a prima facie case that the requested record does or should exist. See Bowling
v. Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). If the
requester is able to make a prima facie case that the records do or should exist, then
the public agency “may also be called upon to prove that its search was adequate.”
City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 848 n.3 (Ky. 2013) (citing
Bowling, 172 S.W.3d at 341).
Here, the Appellant does not dispute that the requested record no longer exists,
but rather, he complains that “legal documents were destroyed.” However, the
Appellant does not cite to any authority, such as the Center’s record retention
schedule, that would require the Center to retain and possess the record he requested.Moreover, even if he had made a prima facie case the Center should still possess the
record, and he has not, the Center adequately explained the record was destroyed
and no longer exists. See Eplion v. Burchett, 354 S.W.3d 598, 603 (Ky. App. 2011)
(“when it is determined that an agency’s records do not exist, the person requesting
those records is entitled to a written explanation for their nonexistence”). Thus, the
Center did not violate the Act when it denied a request for a record it no longer
possesses.
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
#128
Distributed to:
Leonel Martinez #216925
Kristy Hale
Daniel Akers
G. Edward Henry