23-ORD-337
December 18, 2023
In re: Bradley Morris/Mayfield Police Department
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Mayfield Police Department
(“the Department”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because
the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties.
Open Records Decision
On October 27, 2023, inmate Bradley Morris (“Appellant”) submitted a request
to the Department for a “redacted copy of medical records” it had received regarding
the victim in his criminal case. Having received no response by November 13, 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 the request and explain why.
KRS 61.880(1). Here, the Appellant claims he submitted a request to the Department
on October 27, 2023, but it did not respond to that request. On appeal, the
Department states it received the Appellant’s request on November 1, 2023, and
issued a timely response the next day. As proof, the Department provides a copy of
that response.1 The Office has previously found that it is unable to resolve factual
disputes between a requester and a public agency, such as whether a requester
received an agency’s response to his request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-220. Accordingly, the
1
The Department explains that, shortly after its attorney mailed its response, it received a “return
to sender” notice from the Department of Corrections instructing the Department to visit “the DOC
website to register and use the new legal mail system.” The Office notes that beginning in 2023, the
Department of Corrections began refusing to process mail sent by attorneys to inmates if the attorney-
sender does not preregister with its online legal mail portal. It is not clear if the Department of
Corrections
has
promulgated
this
policy
by
administrative
regulation.
See
https://corrections.ky.gov/Facilities/AI/Pages/legalmail.aspx (last accessed Dec. 18, 2023).Office cannot find the Department violated the Act because the Office cannot resolve
the factual dispute between the parties as to whether the Appellant received the
Department’s response to his request.2
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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#528
Distributed to:
Bradley Morris #188310
Nathan Kent
Jay M. Matheny
2
On December 11, 2023, the Appellant informed the Office that it had received the “redacted copy
of medical records” and now objects to the Department’s redactions. However, the Office notes that the
Appellant’s request appears to concern the same medical records that were at issue in 23-ORD-281.
There, the Office determined that “a crime victim’s medical records would also be exempt from public
disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a), absent any countervailing public interest.” 23-ORD-281 n.2. That
holding would support making redactions to a crime victim’s medical records, and the Office declines
to reconsider its decision in 23-ORD-281. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 4 (“The Attorney General shall not
reconsider a decision rendered under the Open Records Law . . . Parties dissatisfied with a decision
may appeal the decision to circuit court as provided by KRS 61.880(5).”).