Skip to main content

Opinion

Opinion By: Matthew RayAssistant Attorney General

Open Records Decision

On November 19, 2021, James Coyne ("Appellant") submitted a request to the University for "a copy of all progress and final reports and IRB reports and updates and minutes of IRB review meetings associated with the PCORI grant awarded to the University of Kentucky, since March 15, 2021, Surviving Suicide: Convening Lived-Experience & Research to Improve Patient-Centered Outcomes." The Appellant requested that any responsive records be delivered via email or mailed to his home. On December 3, 2021, having received no response from the University, this appeal followed.

Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency must respond to a request made under the Act within five business days of receipt of the request. Here, the University did not respond within five business days. Thus, it violated the Act.

On appeal, the University provides the Appellant five pages of responsive records and states affirmatively that "[t]hese are the only other documents the University has in addition to what has already been provided." 1Once a public agency states affirmatively that a record does not exist within its possession, the burden shifts to the requester to present a prima facie case that the requested record does exist.

Bowling v. Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov't , 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). Here, the Appellant has not attempted to make a prima facie case that additional records should exist. Thus, the University did not violate the Act when it provided all the responsive records within its possession.

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from the date of this decision. Pursuant to 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/ Matthew Ray

Matthew Ray

Assistant Attorney General

Footnotes

Footnotes

1 See 21-ORD-071 (the Appellant had previously requested similar records from the University).

LLM Summary
The decision addresses an open records request made by James Coyne to the University of Kentucky for specific grant-related documents. The University failed to respond within the statutory five-day period, violating the Kentucky Open Records Act. However, upon appeal, the University provided the requested documents and affirmed that no additional documents existed. The decision concludes that the University ultimately complied with the Act since it provided all existing responsive documents and the Appellant did not demonstrate that additional documents should exist.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
James Coyne
Agency:
University of Kentucky
Type:
Open Records Decision
Lexis Citation:
2022 KY. AG LEXIS 5
Cites:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.