23-ORD-308
November 14, 2023
In re: Anthony Sadler/Lee Adjustment Center
Summary: The Lee Adjustment Center (“the Center”) did not violate
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for records it
does not possess.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Anthony Sadler (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Center for
copies of his “medical diet order” and other records related to meals he was served
between August 1 and October 4, 2023. The Appellant submitted his request to the
Center, but he identified Aramark as the entity to which his request should be
directed.1 In a timely response, the Center denied the Appellant’s request because it
is not the custodian of the requested records. The Center advised the Appellant to
submit his request to Aramark, which the Center believed may possess the records
the Appellant requested. This appeal followed.
Once a public agency states affirmatively that it does not possess any
responsive records, the burden shifts to the requester to present a prima facie case
that the requested records do exist in the agency's custody or control. See Bowling v.
Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). If the requester
establishes a prima facie case that records do or should exist in the agency’s custody
or control, “then the agency may also be called upon to prove that its search was
adequate.” City of Ft. Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 848 n.3 (Ky.
2013) (citing Bowling, 172 S.W.3d at 341).
1
The Appellant’s request was also addressed to named individuals the Center claims are Aramark
employees.However, instead of attempting to make a prima facie case that the Center
should possess responsive records, the Appellant claims the Center violated the Act
because he directed his request to Aramark and not the Center. As such, he claims
Aramark should have responded to his request instead of the Center. However, the
record on appeal does not reflect the address to which the Appellant submitted his
request. Presumably, he either mailed or hand delivered the request to the Center’s
official records custodian, because the Center is the agency that responded to it. “If
the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the
public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the
name and location of the official custodian of the agency’s public records.”
KRS 61.872(4) (emphasis added).
Here, the Appellant provides no evidence that Aramark, a private corporation,
is a public agency subject to the Act. Moreover, in 12-ORD-222, the Office concluded
that Aramark is not subject to the Act because it is a private corporation and the only
state or local funds it receives are derived from a contract “obtained through a public
competitive procurement.” See KRS 61.870(1)(h). Thus, the Center was not obligated
to “furnish the name and location” of Aramark’s official records custodian,
KRS 61.872(4), because Aramark is not required to designate an official records
custodian. As a result, the Center did not violate the Act when it denied the
Appellant’s request for records it does not possess.
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
#467Distributed to:
Anthony Sadler #151598
Kristy Hale
Daniel Akers
G. Edward Henry, II