The following open records decisions were issued by the Kentucky Attorney General last week:
1. 25-ORD-064 (In re: Eric Ribenboim/Louisville Metro Government)
Summary: Louisville Metro Government violated the Open Records Act when it denied a request for records for failure to certify a commercial purpose when the requester stated his purpose was not commercial. Metro also violated the Act when it failed to respond to a request within five business days and failed to give a detailed explanation of the cause for additional delay as required by KRS 61.872(5). Metro further violated the Act when it denied two requests under KRS 61.872(6) without proof by clear and convincing evidence that they placed an unreasonable burden on the agency.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-064.pdf
2. 25-ORD-065 (In re: Kyle Thompson/Little Sandy Correctional Complex)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Little Sandy Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties concerning receipt of a request for records.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-065.pdf
3. 25-ORD-066 (In re: James Wheeler/Clark County Sheriff’s Department)
Summary: The Clark County Sheriff’s Department violated the Open Records Act when it failed to issue a written disposition of a request for records within five business days, as required by KRS 61.880(1), or an explanation for the delay and the earliest date when records would be available, as required by KRS 61.872(5). The Department did not meet its burden under KRS 61.880(2)(c) to sustain its delay in producing the records. However, the Department did not wrongfully withhold records from a deputy’s personnel file.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-066.pdf
4. 25-ORD-067 (In re: Riki Davis/Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government violated the Open Records Act because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties concerning the issuance and receipt of a response to a request for records.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-067.pdf
5. 25-ORD-068 (In re: Tanyqua Oliver/Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government violated the Open Records Act because the Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between the parties regarding whether LFUCG made the requested records available for inspection.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-068.pdf
6. 25-ORD-069 (In re: Ben W. Richard, Jr./Department of Corrections)
Summary: The Department of Corrections did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for records that do not contain a specific reference to the requesting inmate.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-069.pdf
7. 25-ORD-070 (In re: Brennan Cain/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police did not violate the Open Records Act
when it denied inspection of a video recording of a field sobriety test because KRS 189A.100 requires the video to remain confidential under these facts. KSP also did not violate the Act when it did not provide records it does not possess.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-070.pdf
8. 25-ORD-071 (In re: Jeffrey Gegler/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied inspection of a video depicting the death of a person under KRS 61.878(1)(q).
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-071.pdf
9. 25-ORD-072 (In re: Jeffrey Gegler/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police violated the Open Records Act when it stated it was redacting records without citing a specific exemption to justify its redaction of the records.
