24-ORD-258
December 5, 2024
In re: Eric Anthony/Louisville Metro Police Department
Summary: The
Louisville
Metro
Police
Department
(“the
Department”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed
to respond to a request for records within five business days.
Open Records Decision
On or about September 26, 2024, Eric Anthony (“the Appellant”) submitted a
request for a copy of the Department’s “entire Case File” pertaining to him. The
Appellant initiated this appeal on October 30, 2024, claiming he had received no
response from the Department.
Within five business days after receiving a request to inspect records, a public
agency must decide whether to grant or deny the request and notify the requester of
its decision. KRS 61.880(1). A person wishing to appeal to the Attorney General under
the Act must submit “a copy of the written request and a copy of the written response
denying inspection,” if the agency provided a written response. KRS 61.880(2)(a).
However, the Office is unable to resolve factual disputes between a requester and a
public agency, such as whether a requester received an agency’s response to a
request. See 21-ORD-233 (agency claimed it issued a response but the requester
claimed he did not receive it); see also 22-ORD-125 (agency claimed it did not receive
the request); 22-ORD-100 (same); 22-ORD-051 (same); 21-ORD-163 (same).
Here, the Department claims it received the Appellant’s request on October 1,
2024, and issued a response on October 21, 2024. However, the Department has not
provided a copy of that response. While the Office cannot determine whether the
Appellant received a response to his request, it is undisputed that the Department
failed to respond within five business days. Thus, the Department violated the Act.1
1
The Department claims it provided some records to the Appellant on October 21, 2024, and advised
him, “pursuant to KRS 61.872(5), of a date certain” by which it would provide additional records. Under
KRS 61.872(5), if a “public record is in active use, in storage or not otherwise available,” the five-day
period to provide the record may be extended if “a detailed explanation of the cause is given for furtherA party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. Pursuant to 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/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#448
Distributed to:
Eric Lee Anthony, #247770
Natalie S. Johnson, Esq.
Alice Lyon, Esq.
Nicole Pang, Esq.
Annale R. Taylor, Esq.
delay and the place, time, and earliest date on which the public record will be available for inspection.”
Here, because the Appellant did not submit a copy of the Department’s response with his appeal, the
issue of whether the response complied with KRS 61.872(5) is not ripe for determination.