24-ORD-252
November 26, 2024
In re: Uriah M. Pasha/Lee Adjustment Center
Summary: The Lee Adjustment Center (the “Center”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to cite the specific exception
authorizing it to withhold public records. However, the Center did not
violate the Act when it could not provide records that it does not possess.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Uriah M. Pasha (“Appellant”) submitted a request for “a complete menu
of all food items for meals served along with the dietary facts including, but not
limited to, serving size, full nutritional values, such as vitamins, minerals, protein,
carbohydrates, fiber, and calories.” The Center denied the request because “no menus
or recipes are to be given to inmates.” This appeal followed.
Under KRS 61.880(1), “[a]n agency response denying, in whole or in part,
inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing
the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to
the record withheld.” Here, the Center denied the Appellant’s request but did not cite
any exception authorizing the denial or explain how any specific exception applied to
the records it withheld. Accordingly, the Center violated the Act when it failed to cite
any “specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record[s].”
On appeal, the Center abandons its initial basis for denial. Instead, the Center
now states it does not possess any of the records the Appellant requested.1 A public
1
The Center explains, on appeal, that the documents the Appellant seeks are in the possession of
Aramark and the Department of Corrections Food Services Department and provides contact
information for both entities. See KRS 61.872(4) (“If the person to whom the application is directedagency “is responsible only for those records within its own custody or control.” City
of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 856 (Ky. 2013) (citing
Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980)). Once a
public agency states affirmatively that it does not have the requested records within
its possession, custody, or control, the burden shifts to the requester to present a
prima facie case that it does possess such records. See Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette
Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). Here, the Appellant did not attempt
to make such a prima facie case. Thus, the Center did not violate the Act when it
could not provide records related to food services provided by a contractor.
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
#434
Distributed to:
Uriah M. Pasha #092028
Kristy Hale
Daniel Akers
G. Edward Henry, II
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.”).