23-ORD-146
June 29, 2023
In re: William Cope/Luther Luckett Correctional Complex
Summary: The Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (the “Complex”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for
records without adequately explaining the basis for its denial.
Open Records Decision
Inmate William Cope (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex for a
copy of any receipts related to the purchases he made “through the Keefe group’s
digital Media Vendor’s Sales Managements [sic]” for 320 songs on his “MP3 player.”
In a timely response, the Complex denied the request because the Appellant’s account
lacked sufficient funds. This appeal followed.1
On appeal, the Complex continues to deny the request under KRS 61.874(1)
because it “requires advance payment for copies” of records. Under KRS 61.874(1), a
public agency “may require . . . advance payment of the prescribed fee” for copies of
public records. Thus, an inmate is entitled to receive a copy of a record only after
“complying with the reasonable charge of reproduction.” Friend v. Rees, 696 S.W.2d
325, 326 (Ky. App. 1985). It is “entirely proper for [a correctional] facility to require
prepayment, and to enforce its standard policy relative to assessment of charges to
inmate accounts.” 95-ORD-105.
1
The Appellant, on appeal, raises various legal questions and issues unrelated to any alleged
violations of the Act, such as his ongoing postconviction litigation efforts. This Office has consistently
found that an open records appeal is not an appropriate forum to answer questions of law unrelated
to the Act. See, e.g., 23-ORD-094; 22-ORD-206; 21-ORD-001; 19-ORD-040.Nevertheless, an agency response denying a request for records must explain
the denial by “provid[ing] particular and detailed information,” not merely a “limited
and perfunctory response.” Edmondson v. Alig, 926 S.W.2d 856, 858 (Ky. 1996). “The
agency’s explanation must be detailed enough to permit [a reviewing] court to assess
its claim and the opposing party to challenge it.” Ky. New Era, Inc. v. City of
Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 81 (Ky. 2013). Thus, if a public agency denies a request
under KRS 61.874(1) due to an inmate’s inability to prepay “the prescribed fee,” it
must actually “prescribe” the total fee for the records requested and inform him of it,
not merely state it is denied because of insufficient funds. See, e.g., 23-ORD-094; 23-
ORD-029. If the public agency’s response does not notify the requester of the total
prescribed fee, he is unable to challenge the reasonableness of the fee, or add money
to his account to facilitate payment.
Here, the Complex’s response to the Appellant’s request stated only, “Denied,
insufficient funds.” Therefore, its response was “limited and perfunctory” because it
did not notify the Appellant of the amount of the fee it claimed he was unable to pay.
On appeal, the Complex continues to deny the Appellant’s request for that reason, in
addition to its new claim that it does not possess responsive records.2 Thus, it is
questionable if the Complex even conducted a search for responsive records in the
first instance, because had it done so, it would have realized it did not possess records
for which a copying fee could have been assessed. As a result, the Complex’s response
violated the Act.
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.
2
The Complex now states it does not possess any records responsive to his request because the
requested records are “from a digital media vendor,” a private entity. Once a public agency states
affirmatively that it does not possess any responsive records, the burden shifts to the requester to
present a prima facie case that the requested records do exist in the agency’s custody or control. See
Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). Here, the Appellant
did not attempt to make such a prima facie case.Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#226
Distributed to:
William Cope #197416
Amy V. Barker
Jesse L. Robbins
Lydia C. Kendrick
Ann Smith