23-ORD-113
May 23, 2023
In re: Saeid Shafizadeh/Shelby County Detention Center
Summary: The Shelby County Detention Center (“the Center”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not respond to a
request to inspect records.
Open Records Decision
On April 4, 2023, Saeid Shafizadeh (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the
Center to inspect fourteen categories of records.1 On April 5, 2023, the Center
acknowledged receiving the request and stated it would begin “compiling the
information.” After receiving no further response from the Center by April 25, 2023,
the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Upon receiving a request to inspect records, a public agency must decide within
five business days whether to grant the request, or deny it and explain why.
KRS 61.880(1). Or, if responsive records are “in active use, in storage or not otherwise
available,” a public agency may delay access to them by stating the earliest date on
which they will be available and a detailed explanation of the cause of the delay.
KRS 61.872(5). Here, the Center acknowledged it had received the Appellant’s
request, but neither granted nor denied it within five business days. Instead, it stated
it would begin “compiling the information,” but did not specify the earliest date on
1
The Appellant sought: (1) operation manuals used by the Center; (2) the Center’s contracts with
specific categories of vendors; (3) records related to the “monitoring and recording of jail audio/video
calls”; (4) records related to KRS 441.111; (5) “procedures for processing inmates’ confidential
correspondence”; (6) the Center’s contracts with food vendors; (7) the Center’s “meal menu for 2023”;
(8) a directory of Center personnel “including their position, work station, telephone number and
electronic mail address”; (9) the Center’s emergency telephone numbers; (10) the Center’s contracts
with health service providers; (11) “records of income generated from inmate phone services”; (12)
“records of income generated from” the Centers’ commissary; (13) records related to an inmate phone
service outage in 2022; and (14) the Center’s liability insurance policy.which the records would be available, give a detailed explanation for the cause of the
delay, or otherwise respond to the Appellant until after this appeal was initiated.
Therefore, the Center violated the Act when it did not appropriately respond to the
Appellant’s request.2
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#164
Distributed to:
Saeid Shafizadeh
Major Sharon Hardin
Captain Robert Gravett
Darrell Cox
Carrie McIntyre
2
After the appeal was initiated, the Center provided responsive records to the Appellant. The
Appellant states the Center has not provided all responsive records, but has failed to specify which
records he claims were not provided. Regardless, the Office cannot resolve factual disputes, such as
competing claims about whether all responsive records have been provided. See, e.g., 22-ORD-261; 22-
ORD-010; 19-ORD-083 (stating the Office cannot “resolve the factual dispute between the parties
regarding the disparity between records which have been provided and those sought but not
provided”).