26-ORD-143 – Ann Ramser/Louisville Metro Government

Opinion Content:

April 2, 2026

In re: Ann Ramser/Louisville Metro Government

Summary: The Louisville Metro Government (“Metro”) violated the
Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to provide a detailed
explanation of the cause of delay, as required by KRS 61.872(5).

Open Records Decision

On January 19, 2026, Ann Ramser (“Appellant”) submitted a request to Metro
for records related to Metro’s Planning Commission bylaws and policies and
procedures. On January 26, 2026, Metro responded and notified the Appellant that,
pursuant to KRS 61.872(5), it needed until April 28, 2026, to make the records
available to her. As a basis for the extension, Metro stated that: (1) the request
“[r]equires a search for paper and electronic records” and “the files to be reviewed and
redacted”; (2) “the scope of the request is broad”; (3) “[t]he records contain a mixture
of exempt and nonexempt information”; and (4) it had to conduct “an email search.”
This appeal followed.

Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency must decide within five business days
whether to grant a request or deny it and “notify in writing the person making the
request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” This time may be extended
under KRS 61.872(5) when records are “in active use, in storage or not otherwise
available,” but only if the agency “immediately notif[ies] the applicant” and gives “a
detailed explanation of the cause . . . for further delay and the place, time, and earliest
date on which the public record will be available for inspection.” The Office has
recognized that persons requesting a large volume of records should “expect
reasonable delays in records production.” 12-ORD-228. However, the reasonableness
of such a delay “is a fact-intensive inquiry.” 21-ORD-045. A vague statement about
the volume of a request is not a “detailed explanation” under KRS 61.872(5). See, e.g.,
22-ORD-164; 17-ORD-194.

Here, the Appellant submitted a request to Metro, and it informed her it
needed until April 28 to make the records available. On appeal, Metro states only
that it has since provided all responsive records in its possession to the Appellant. 1
But Metro’s initial response failed to provide the “detailed explanation” required by
KRS 61.872(5). Accordingly, Metro violated the Act.

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

Ann Ramser
Alice Lyon
Nicole Pang
Natalie S. Johnson
Annale Taylor
Donald Haas
Michael Spenlau
Anne Coorsen

1 Because this appeal challenges the delay of Metro’s response, it is not rendered moot by Metro’s
eventual production of documents. See 25-ORD-385 n.1.