23-ORD-132
June 13, 2023
In re: Uriah Pasha/Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex
Summary: The Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“Complex”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not respond to a
request to inspect records within five business days.
Open Records Decision
On April 11, 2023, Uriah Pasha (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the
Complex for a copy of a list of the songs he had purchased from January 2016 to April
11, 2023, with a music media account, and showing how much each song cost. The
Complex stamped the request as received on April 12, 2023, and responded to it on
April 24, 2023, stating it “no longer ha[d] access to that system.” This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Appellant states only that he is appealing the Complex’s
response “due to the fact [he] received it back May 9, 2023.” This Office interprets
that statement as a request to review the timeliness of the Complex’s response. Upon
receiving a request to inspect records, a public agency must decide within five
business days whether to grant the request, or deny it and explain why.
KRS 61.880(1). Or, if responsive records are “in active use, in storage or not otherwise
available,” a public agency may delay access to them by stating the earliest date on
which they will be available and a detailed explanation of the cause of the delay.
KRS 61.872(5).
The Complex carries the burden of justifying its actions. KRS 61.880(2)(c). It
explains on appeal that, after an initial search for responsive records was unfruitful,
it forwarded the request to an employee of a third-party supplier the Complex
contracts with to fulfill consumer orders from inmates. That third-party employeesigned the April 24 response sent to the Appellant, stating she “no longer ha[s] access
to that system.” Although the Complex explains its search for records, it has not
explained why it failed to issue its written response to the Appellant’s request within
five business days of receiving it on April 12, 2023. Thus, the Complex violated the
Act when it failed to respond to the Appellant’s request within five business days.1
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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 emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#192
Distributed to:
Uriah Pasha #092028
Amy V. Barker
Lydia C. Kendrick
Ann Smith
1
To the extent the Appellant complains that a non-employee of the Complex issued its official
response, the Act requires a public agency’s written response to “be issued by the official custodian or
under his or her authority.” KRS 61.880(1) (emphasis added). Because the non-employee was acting
under the records custodian’s authority, she was authorized to issue the Complex’s response. Whether
the Complex or its third-party contractors have access to the music media system, however, is a factual
question the Office cannot resolve See, e.g., 23-ORD-050; 22-ORD-010; 19-ORD-083; 03-ORD-061;
OAG 89-81. Consequently, this Office is unable to find the Complex violated the Act when it, through
its third-party supplier, informed the Appellant it no longer had access to the music media system.