24-ORD-146
June 18, 2024
In re: Makeda Charles/City of Louisville
Summary: The City of Louisville (the “City”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) when it failed to respond to a request made under the Act.
Open Records Decision
On April 19, 2024, Makeda Charles1 (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the
City containing four subparts for records related to her personal experience with the
Louisville Metro Department of Corrections. On May 18, 2024, the Appellant claimed
she had not received a response from the City and initiated this appeal.
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.” Here, on
April 19, 2024, the Appellant submitted a request to the City through email and
claims she had not received a response to her request as of May 18, 2024. On appeal,
the City admits it “did not respond to [the Appellant’s] email” due to the “volume of
1
The Office takes notice of its decision in 24-ORD-135 involving another appeal initiated by the
Appellant. Based on the record developed in that appeal, the Office found that the Louisville Regional
Airport Authority did not violate the Act when it denied a request for records because the Appellant
is not a resident of the Commonwealth. The Act only gives a “resident of the Commonwealth” the
statutory right to demand access to public records. KRS 61.872(2)(a). It does not, however, prohibit
nonresidents from obtaining public records. Rather, “[t]he official custodian may require the applicant
to provide a statement in the written application of the manner in which the applicant is a resident of
the Commonwealth under KRS 61.870(10)(a) to (f).” Id. (emphasis added). Here, the City has not
challenged the Appellant’s status as a “resident of the Commonwealth.” Thus, that issue is not properly
before the Office and its decision in 24-ORD-135 is not dispositive here.requests [it] receive[s].”2 Thus, the City violated the Act when it did not respond to
the Appellant’s request for records.
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#245
Distributed to:
Makeda Charles
Alice Lyon
Nicole Pang
Natalie S. Johnson
Annale Taylor
Craig Greenberg
2
The City states that between April 2, 2024, and May 13, 2024, it received “multiple requests” from
the Appellant. The City also states that the Appellant “was provided with a complete copy of her
inmate file with the exception of medical records, for which she has not provided a release.” Regarding
the video footage the Appellant requested, the City asserts it provided all the video footage it possesses,
that some of the requested footage is in the possession of other agencies, and that some requested
footage never existed. In response, the Appellant asserts that the City is “corrupt” and that
“[e]lectronic files are never destroyed” and can always be “dug up” even if “deleted.” However, the only
issue raised in the Appellant’s original appeal was the City’s failure to respond to her request. The
Office declines to consider the new issues raised on appeal. See, e.g., 22-ORD-200 n.2; 22-ORD-170 n.2;
22-ORD-142 n.3; 21-ORD-177.24-ORD-146
Page 3