25-ORD-002
January 2, 2025
In re: Jerry Eldridge/Little Sandy Correctional Complex
Summary: The Little Sandy Correctional Complex (“the Complex”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it could not provide
records it had not created.
Open Records Decision
On October 15, 2024, Jeffrey Gegler (“the Appellant”) submitted a request to
the Complex seeking two Complex employees’ badge numbers and names. On October
17, 2024, the Appellant submitted another request asking that a particular unit and
video be “preserved.” Subsequently, on November 21, 2024, claiming the Complex had
“ignored” his requests, the Appellant submitted this appeal.1
On appeal, the Complex claims to have never received the Appellant’s requests.
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.” KRS 61.880(1). Here, the Complex claims it did not receive the Appellant’s
requests until this appeal was initiated.2 The Office cannot resolve factual disputes,
such as whether a public agency actually received a request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-071;
23-ORD-005; 22-ORD-216; 22-ORD-148; 22-ORD-125; 22-ORD-100; 22-ORD-051; 21-
1
The Appellant also included a copy of his October 31, 2024, request for grievances he submitted to
the Complex, which was granted. The Appellant complains only of “ignored” requests and does not
identify any deficiencies with the Complex’s response to his October 31 request. Accordingly, the Office
declines to assume, without evidence, that the Appellant has challenged the Complex’s grant of his
October 31 request.
2
In its appeal response, the Complex claims the Appellant’s October 15 and 17 requests did not seek
documents but, instead, sought information or demanded that the Complex take certain actions.
However, because the Complex had not yet denied the Appellant’s requests on those grounds, those
arguments are not ripe for review.ORD-163. Thus, the Office cannot find the Complex violated the Act when it did not
respond to requests it claims it did not receive.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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#492
Distributed to:
Jerry Eldridge #278154
Michelle Harrison, Executive Advisor, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet
Renee Day, Paralegal, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet
Ann Smith, Executive Staff Advisor, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet
3
Much of the Appellant’s appeal letter complains about his attempts to file grievances related his
incarceration at the Complex. But that is an issue beyond the scope of the Office’s review for
compliance with the Act. See, e.g., 23-ORD-048 n.1 (noting the Office “cannot adjudicate ancillary legal
disputes in the context of an appeal brought under KRS 61.880(2)”); 22-ORD-244 n.3 (same).