25-ORD-095
April 3, 2025
In re: Christopher Peyton/Roederer Correctional Complex
Summary: The Roederer Correctional Complex (“the Complex”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to issue a
response within five business days of receiving it. The Complex did not
violate the Act when it did not provide records it does not possess.
Open Records Decision
On January 13, 2025, inmate Christopher Peyton (“Appellant”) submitted a
request to the Complex seeking all his “receipts for property orders, Blick orders, and
book orders” from the time he was incarcerated at the Complex. In response, on
February 18, 2025, the Complex provided responsive records. Alleging the Complex
had not timely responded to his request and did not provide all responsive records,
this appeal followed.
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.” Here, the
Complex admits that it received the Appellant’s request on February 7, 2025, but did
not respond until February 18, 2025. It “concedes it did not respond within five
business days,” and therefore, violated the Act.
On appeal, the Complex maintains it has provided all responsive records it
possesses to the Appellant. Once a public agency states affirmatively that it does not
possess responsive records, the burden shifts to the requester to present a prima facie
case that the requested records do or should exist. See Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette
Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). If the requester establishes a prima
facie case that records do or should exist, “then the agency may also be called upon to25-ORD-XXX
Page 2
prove that its search was adequate.” City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406
S.W.3d 842, 848 n.3 (Ky. 2013) (citing Bowling, 172 S.W.3d at 341). Similarly, once a
public agency claims to have provided all responsive records, the burden shifts to the
requester to make a prima facie case that additional records exist because, in essence,
the agency has denied the existence of additional records.
On appeal, the Appellant states only that the Complex did not “provide copies
of receipts for any of the property orders [he] received while” located at the Complex.
A requester’s mere assertion that records should exist does not establish a prima facie
case that they do. See e.g. 24-ORD-027. Accordingly, the Office cannot find that the
Complex violated the Act when it provided all responsive records in its possession to
the Appellant.
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
#108
Distributed to:
Christopher Peyton. #283628
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