The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions this week:
1. 25-ORD-073 (In re: Darcie Davis/Morgan County Fiscal Court)
Summary: The Morgan County Fiscal Court
violated the Open Records Act when it failed to properly
invoke KRS 61.872(5) to delay its production of public records. The Fiscal Court 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-073.pdf
2. 25-ORD-074 (In re: William Elkins/Clark County Judge/Executive’s Office)
Summary: The Clark County Judge/Executive’s Office
violated the Open Records Act when it failed to respond to a request for records within five business days and when it failed to display in a prominent place on its website the information required by KRS 61.872(2). The Agency subverted the intent of the Act, within the
meaning of KRS 61.880(4), by excessive delay in locating records.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-074.pdf
3. 25-ORD-075 (In re: Tiffany Aikin/Office of Medical Cannabis)
Summary: The Office of Medical Cannabis violated the Open Records Act when it denied a request as unreasonably
burdensome.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-075.pdf
4. 25-ORD-076 (In re: Sarah Thomas/University of Kentucky)
Summary: The University of Kentucky violated the Open Records Act when it failed to grant or deny requests for records within five business days and did not properly invoke KRS 61.872(5). However, the University did not violate the Act when it could not provide records that no longer exist.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-076.pdf
5. 25-ORD-077 (In re: Sarah Thomas/University of Kentucky)
Summary: The University of Kentucky did not violate the Open Records Act when it withheld confidential attorney-client communications under KRE 503(b). However, the
University violated the Act when it failed to grant or deny a request for records within five business days and did not properly invoke KRS 61.872(5). The University did not violate the Act when it denied a voluminous request for records because it would place an unreasonable
burden on the agency.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-077.pdf
6. 25-ORD-078 (In re: Stephanie Eng/Department of Corrections)
Summary: The Department of Corrections did not
violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request that did not state the manner in which the requester was a resident of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-078.pdf
7. 25-ORD-079 (In re: Jeffrey Gegler/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Kentucky State Police violated the Open Records Act when it failed to properly invoke
KRS 61.878(1)(h) to withhold records.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-079.pdf
8. 25-ORD-080 (In re: David Webster/Christian County Public Schools)
Summary: Christian County Public Schools did not violate the Open Records Act when it withheld communications
between staff and Board members that were exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a), (k), or (s).
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-080.pdf
9. 25-ORD-081 (In re: Stephanie Kuzydym/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Office cannot resolve the factual dispute regarding whether the Appellant’s reply to the Kentucky State Police’s
response to a prior request for records was a new request for records.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2025/25-ORD-081.pdf
10. 25-ORD-082 (In re: Brandon Voelker/City of London)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the City of London violated the Open Records Act because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties.
