26-ORD-059 – Jonathan Enyart/Lee Adjustment Center

Opinion Content:

February 20, 2026

In re: Jonathan Enyart/Lee Adjustment Center

Summary: The Lee Adjustment Center (“the Center”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to, within five business days, fulfill
a request for public records or deny it and explain why.

Open Records Decision

Jonathan Enyart (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Center for a “copy of
outgoing legal mail log, for part of: October 9, 2025[,] to October 31, 2025.” In
response, the Center provided “a copy of outgoing legal mail that was logged for [the
Appellant] in October 2025.” This appeal followed. 1

Under the Act, a public agency has five business days to fulfill a request for
public records or deny such a request and explain why. KRS 61.880(1). Here, the
Appellant requested a “copy of outgoing legal mail log, for part of: October 9, 2025[,]
to October 31, 2025.” Yet, the Center did not provide the requested legal mail log to
fulfill the Appellant’s request. Instead, the Center transcribed portions of the record
into a new document, providing some responsive information from the requested legal
mail log but withholding other information contained in the log. 2 Thus, the Center
violated the Act when it failed to fulfill a request for a public record or explain why it
denied the request. 3

1 The Appellant also raises issues unrelated to the Act. An open records appeal is not the appropriate
forum to resolve issues unrelated to the Act because the Office’s jurisdiction is limited to an agency’s
alleged violations of the Act. See KRS 61.880(2)(a).
2 The Center does not divulge what information was omitted from its transcription of the legal mail
log, nor does it provide any basis for withholding the omitted information. Under KRS 61.880(2)(c),
the public agency has the burden of proof to sustain its actions.
3 On appeal, the Center states it provided a redacted copy of the requested legal mail log and asserts
the appeal is now moot. Under 40 KAR 1:030 § 6, “[i]f the requested documents are made available to
the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision

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 [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General

Jonathan Enyart #229333
G. Edward Henry
Kristy Hale
Danny Dodd
Jason Sizemore

in the matter.” However, mootness only applies when the agency provides the requested records in
their entirety, not redacted copies. See, e.g., 25-ORD-204 n.2; 23-ORD-313 n.2; 20-ORD-078; 12-ORD-
046. Because the Center states that it provided a redacted copy of the requested legal mail log, this
appeal is not moot. Further, because the Appellant initiated this appeal due to the Center’s alleged
failure to provide the requested record or explain why it denied his request, the substance of the
Center’s subsequent response is not ripe for review. See, e.g., 23-ORD-135 n.3. The Office has
previously found that it cannot resolve a factual dispute between the parties to an appeal. See, e.g.,
22-ORD-010 (declining to resolve a factual dispute that the records received were different from the
records requested).