24-ORD-015
January 22, 2024
In re: Evan Doyle/Louisville Metro Government
Summary: Louisville Metro Government (“Metro”) subverted the intent
of the Open Records Act (“the Act”) within the meaning of
KRS 61.880(4), when it delayed access to records for nearly two months
without proper justification.
Open Records Decision
On November 14, 2023, Evan Doyle1 (“Appellant”) submitted a request to Metro
for records related to a specific individual, an estate, and a specific property. The
request was received by Metro on the same day through its online portal. On
December 19, 2023, having received no response from Metro, 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.”2 Here,
Metro admits it received the request from the Appellant on November 14, 2023, but
1
The Appellant’s full name is Michael Evan Doyle, but he has signed all of his communications with
the name “Evan Doyle.” On appeal, Metro confuses his requests with another Mike Doyle, the
appellant in 23-ORD-333, 23-ORD-334, 24-ORD-012, and 24-ORD-016. But the requester in those
decisions signed his communications with the name “Mike Doyle” and uses a different email address
than the Appellant.
2
A public agency may also delay access to responsive records if they are “in active use, storage, or
not otherwise available.” KRS 61.872(5). A public agency that invokes KRS 61.872(5) to delay access
to responsive records must also notify the requester of the earliest date on which the records will be
available and provide a detailed explanation for the cause of the delay. At no point did Metro attempt
to invoke KRS 61.872(5) to delay the Appellant’s access to the records it eventually provided. Rather,
on appeal, Metro states only that the request “was assigned to multiple departments” when it was
received.did not respond to it within five business days. Therefore, Metro subverted the intent
of the Act within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4).3
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#562
Distributed to:
Evan Doyle
Alice Lyon
Annale Taylor
Natalie S. Johnson
Nicole Pang
3
Metro states it has now provided the Appellant with all records responsive to his request and that
the appeal is moot. However, “[i]f a person feels the intent of [the Act] is being subverted by an agency
short of denial of inspection, including but not limited to . . . delay past the five (5) day period described
in [KRS 61.880(1)] . . . the person may complain in writing to the Attorney General, and the complaint
shall be subject to the same adjudicatory process as if the record had been denied.” KRS 61.880(4).
Here, the Appellant brought this appeal claiming that Metro’s untimely response violated the Act,
which the Office construes as a claim of subversion under KRS 61.880(4). As such, the appeal is not
moot with respect to Metro’s unreasonable delay in providing the requested records. However, the
Appellant does not dispute that Metro has now provided all responsive records.