The Kentucky Attorney General has issued the following open records and open meetings decisions since January 2025:
1. 25-ORD-001 (In re: Jeffrey Gegler/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police did not violate the Open Records Act when it could not provide records it had not created.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-001.pdf
2. 25-ORD-002 (In re: Jerry Eldridge/Little Sandy Correctional Complex)
Summary: The Little Sandy Correctional Complex did not violate the Open Records Act when it could not provide records it had not created.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-002.pdf
3. 25-ORD-003 (In re: Tanyqua Oliver/Fayette County Public Schools)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Fayette County Public Schools violated the Open Records Act when it provided what the Appellant considered to be an incomplete record.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-003.pdf
4. 25-OMD-004 (In re: Aaron Tennyson/Brandenburg City Council)
Summary: The Office of the Attorney General lacks jurisdiction to consider a complaint alleging that the Brandenburg City Council violated the Open Meetings Act because the complaint was not first submitted to the presiding officer of the public agency accused of violating the Act.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-OMD-004.pdf
5. 25-ORD-005 (In re: Glenn Odom/Oldham County Detention Center)
Summary: The Oldham County Detention Center did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not provide records it does not possess. The Office cannot resolve the factual dispute regarding when the Center received the Appellant’s request.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-005.pdf
6. 25-ORD-006
(In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary)
Summary: The Kentucky State Penitentiary did not violate the Open Records Act when it provided all responsive records it possesses.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-006.pdf
7. 25-ORD-007 (In re: Vivian Miles/Department of Corrections)
Summary: The Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act when it directed the Appellant to the public agency possessing the requested records but declined to identify the agency’s official custodian.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-007.pdf
8. 25-ORD-008 (In re: Cristina Keith/University of Kentucky)
Summary: The University of Kentucky violated the Open Records Act when it failed to give a detailed explanation of the cause for delay and the earliest date when requested records would be available as required under KRS 61.872(5)
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-008.pdf
9. 25-ORD-009 (In re: Jason Webb/Luther Luckett Correctional Complex)
Summary: An agency bears the burden of demonstrating that a requester withdrew his or her request prior to the expiration of the agency’s deadline to respond to the request. The Luther Luckett Correctional Complex did not sustain its burden of proof that the request was withdrawn, and therefore violated the Open Records Act by not providing a written response stating whether the request would be granted within five business days.
25-ORD-010 (In re: Timothy Lauderdale/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request that failed to contain a statement demonstrating that the applicant is a resident of the Commonwealth.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-010.pdf
11. 25-ORD-011 (In re: Kurt Wallace/City of Hillview)
Summary: The City of Hillview violated the Open Records Act when it failed to respond to a request within five business days of receiving it.
12. 25-ORD-011 (In re: Kurt Wallace/City of Hillview)
Summary: The City of Hillview violated the Open Records Act when it failed to respond to a request within five business days of receiving it.
