25-ORD-410 – Bridget McGinley/City of Covington

Opinion Content:

December 18, 2025

In re: Bridget McGinley/City of Covington

Summary: The Office cannot find that the City of Covington (“the
City”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because the Office
cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties concerning
receipt of a request for records. The Office declines to make a finding as
to the reasonableness of delay in producing records where the City
established by clear and convincing evidence that a request posed an
unreasonable burden under KRS 61.872(6).

Open Records Decision

On November 7, 2025, Bridget McGinley (“the Appellant”) allegedly submitted
a three-part request to the City for various records. In the first part, the Appellant
requested “[a]ll communications and documents of [City] Employees and any
employees or owners of Corporex, Champ Realty Investment Corp, Bexion
Pharmaceuticals and any related businesses from January 1, 2015 – October 30,
2025.” Included in the request were “all mentions and written communications
regarding” three individuals, as well as “any communications between the [City] and
Champ Realty Investment Corp, Corporex,” and two individuals “regarding the
acquisition of 209 Greenup St. Covington, KY from dates January 1, 2014 – October
31, 2025 and 11 East Rivercenter Blvd. from January 1, 2020 – October 31, 2025.”

In the second part of her request, the Appellant requested “all communications
and documents regarding the $15,000,000 ‘Covington Wet Research Lab’
appropriation in HB1 from 2022 by the General Assembly of Kentucky between any
employees of the State of Kentucky and [any] employee or elected official of Kenton
County[,] and any internal communications regarding the process of choosing
Corporex as the Development Manager of the ONENKY Building,” including “any
contract or payment made or received regarding the ONE NKY building and
Covington Life Sciences Lab in Covington, KY or the Commonwealth Center for
Biomedical Excellence.”

In the third part of the Appellant’s request, she requested “[a]ll records,
documents, and communications that include the ONE NKY Building[,] the
Commonwealth Center for Biomedical Excellence and [a named individual],
Corporex, Champ Realty, and [another individual] from January 1, 2015 – October
31, 2025.” Having received no response by November 18, 2025, the Appellant initiated
this appeal.

Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency must respond to a request for records
within five business days after receipt. Here, the Appellant claims the City failed to
timely respond to her request. However, the City states it did not receive the request
before receiving notice of this appeal on November 18, 2025. Because the Office
cannot adjudicate disputed issues of fact, such as whether an agency received a
request to inspect records, the Office cannot find that the City failed to respond in a
timely manner. See, e.g., 22-ORD-010.

On appeal, the City asserts the records responsive to the Appellant’s request
are voluminous and include 14,430 emails. The City states it “will take a significant
amount of time” to review and redact the emails and “around 15% [of the] emails will
require further review by an attorney for the City as they may contain records
confidentially disclosed to the City, attorney-client communications, preliminary
drafts or notes, preliminary recommendations, and other items.” The City therefore
claims the Appellant’s request imposes an unreasonable burden. However, the City
states it intends to comply with the request “in the interest of government
transparency” and will make the records available by March 27, 2026.

Under KRS 61.872(6), “[i]f the application places an unreasonable burden in
producing public records[,] the official custodian may refuse to permit inspection of
the public records or mail copies thereof. However, refusal under this section shall be
sustained by clear and convincing evidence.” “When determining whether a
particular request places an unreasonable burden on an agency, the Office considers
the number of records implicated, whether the records are in a physical or electronic
format, and whether the records contain exempt material requiring redaction.” 22-
ORD-221. Of these, the number of records implicated “is the most important factor to
be considered.” 22-ORD-182.

In 25-ORD-322, the Office found an agency had shown an unreasonable burden
by clear and convincing evidence when its search resulted in 11,482 emails and
attachments, which required review for “exemptions under personal privacy and
FERPA [the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g], and
potentially attorney-client privilege or preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence, or
recommendations or memoranda.” Here, the City’s search retrieved 14,430 emails
requiring review, and the City anticipates redaction on many of the same grounds.
Thus, the burden on the City is comparable to that determined to be unreasonable in

25-ORD-322. Therefore, the City has established by clear and convincing evidence
that it could have denied the request under KRS 61.872(6). Because the City has
elected to undertake the burden of reviewing and producing the records in the
interest of transparency, the Office declines to make a finding as to whether the
projected delay in producing records is reasonable. Accordingly, the Office cannot find
that the City violated the Act.

A 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 [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General

Ms. Bridget McGinley
Ms. Lydia Northcutt
Frank Schultz, Esq.
Hon. Ronald Washington
Covington City Clerk