26-ORD-134 – John Rothenburger/Shelby County School District

Opinion Content:

March 30, 2026

In re: John Rothenburger/Shelby County School District

Summary: The Shelby County School District (“the District”) violated
the Open Records Act (“the Act”), when it failed to issue a written
response to a request made under the Act within five business days of
receiving the request.

Open Records Decision

John Rothenburger (“the Appellant”) submitted a records request 1 to the
District, which it received on December 2, 2025. On December 17, 2025, the District
granted the Appellant inspection and copies of certain records, which he claims the
District “represented verbally” were all the records responsive to his request. This
appeal followed.

The Appellant claims the District failed to issue a timely written response to
his request and failed to notify him in writing that the production of records would
be delayed. 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”
(emphasis added). Here, the District states it “communicated with [the Appellant]
that the records requested were available for [him] to retrieve on December 17, 2025,”
but does not claim it “communicated” in writing. Thus, the District does not dispute
the Appellant’s allegation that it failed to issue a timely written response that either
granted or denied his request.

Instead, the District claims it “advised [the Appellant] that a delay [would] be
needed” due to the “voluminous” nature of the requested records. Again, the District
does not claim it communicated in writing. Under KRS 61.872(5), when public records

1 Because the Appellant expressly limits the scope of his appeal to “timeliness only,” the content of
the request is not at issue.

are “in active use, in storage or not otherwise available,” an agency must
“immediately notify the applicant [and] designate a place, time, and date for
inspection of the public records, not to exceed fine (5) days from receipt of the
application, unless a detailed explanation of the cause is given for further delay and
the place, time, and earliest date on which the public record will be available for
inspection.” This notification must be in writing, as “[t]he Act consistently requires
agencies to respond in writing to open records requests, even when they are unable
to supply the records requested.” Eplion v. Burchett, 354 S.W.3d 598, 603 (Ky. App.
2011) (emphasis added); see also 25-ORD-066. Here, the District does not dispute the
Appellant’s allegation that it failed to “[i]nvoke an extension of time pursuant to
KRS 61.872(5)” in writing; nor does the District claim to have issued a written
response to the Appellant’s request at any time. Accordingly, the District violated the
Act by failing to timely respond in writing as required by KRS 61.880(1).

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

John Rothenburger
Lindsay Tate Porter, Esq.
Joshua Matthews, Superintendent
Andy Moore
Cathy Davis