23-ORD-291
November 1, 2023
In re: Kenny Goben/Louisville Metro Police Department
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Louisville Metro Police
Department (“the Department”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the
parties as to whether the Department received the request.
Open Records Decision
Kenny Goben (“Appellant”) claims that, on September 15, 2023, he mailed a
request to the Department for records.1 On October 1, 2023, having received no
response from the Department, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a request for records under the Act, a
public agency “shall determine within five (5) [business] days . . . after the receipt of
any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the
person making the request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” Here, the
Appellant claims he submitted a request to the Department on September 15, 2023,
but it did not respond to his request. In contrast, on appeal, the Department states it
did not respond to the Appellant’s request because it never received it.2 The Office
has previously found it is unable to resolve factual disputes between a requester and
a public agency, such as whether an agency received a request. See, e.g., 22-ORD-100;
1
The Appellant requested the “names of all LMPD Officers that were convicted in court for using
‘Fake or Forged’ search warrants from 1990-2015.” The Appellant further specified that the
Department’s response to his request should include “a copy of the indictment and circuit case number
for each officer convicted.”
2
The Appellant mailed his request to a specific officer, but he did not provide the mailing address
to where he mailed it. The Department states the officer to whom the Appellant addressed his request
“retired in July of 2017.”22-ORD-051; 21-ORD-163. Accordingly, the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute
between the parties as to whether the Department received the Appellant’s request,
and it therefore cannot find the Department violated the Act.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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
#438
Distributed to:
Kenny Goben
Alice Lyon
Nicole Pang
Natalie S. Johnson
Annale Taylor