23-ORD-292
November 1, 2023
In re: Saeid Shafizadeh/Louisville Metro Government
Summary: The Louisville Metro Government (“Metro”) violated the
Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not respond to a request to
inspect records. Metro also violated the Act when it failed to notify the
requester it was not the proper agency for portions of the request and
provide the contact information of the correct agency.
Open Records Decision
On September 12, 2023, Saeid Shafizadeh (“Appellant”) submitted a request to
Metro seeking copies of the “[c]omplete personnel files” of two members of the
Jefferson County Board of Assessment Appeals and “[r]ecords of inspections
conducted by the members of” the board. Having received no response to his request
by October 5, 2023, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
On appeal, Metro now claims it provided all responsive records to the
Appellant and the appeal should be considered moot. However, the Appellant
disputes whether all responsive records were provided and argues the appeal is not
moot. Moreover, Metro states it provided the “personnel files” of the two board
members and provided the contact information for the official records custodian of
the “records of inspections.” The Appellant, therefore, now claims Metro subverted
the intent of the Act because it did not inform him originally that it was not the
custodian of “records of inspections.”
Under 40 KAR 1:030 § 6, “If the requested documents are made available to
the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline
to issue a decision in the matter.” Here, the parties dispute whether all responsiverecords have been provided. Further, Metro’s response on appeal indicates additional
responsive records do exist, but it does not possess them. As such, the Office cannot
find that “the requested documents” were provided to the Appellant such that the
appeal can be rendered moot under 40 KAR 1:030 § 6.
Regarding the merits of the Appellant’s appeal, Metro’s initial failure to
respond to his request violated the Act. Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a
request for records under the Act, a public agency “shall determine within five (5)
[business] days . . . after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the
request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the five (5)
day period, of its decision.” Moreover, “[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.” KRS 61.872(4).
Here, the Appellant claims to have submitted a request on September 12, but
not to have received a response until after he initiated this appeal. Metro carries the
burden of sustaining its actions, KRS 61.880(2)(c), but it has not disputed the
Appellant’s claim or otherwise explained why it failed to respond to the request
within five business days. Nor did it notify the Appellant that it was not the official
custodian of records for some of the records the Appellant requested. Thus, Metro
violated the Act when it failed to respond to the Appellant’s request within five
business days.
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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#444Distributed to:
Saeid Shafizadeh
Alice Lyon
Nicole Pang
Natalie S. Johnson
Annale Taylor