26-ORD-130 – Jeremy Brooks/Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex

Opinion Content:

March 27, 2026

In re: Jeremy Brooks/Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex

Summary: The Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“the
Complex”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it
redacted portions of records that do not contain a specific reference to
the requesting inmate, under KRS 197.025(2), or when it redacted
information that, if released, would pose a security threat under
KRS 197.025(1).

Open Records Decision

Inmate Jeremy Brooks (“the Appellant”) requested “copies of any E-mails,
memo’s, or any type of Eltronic [sic] communications sent to: or from:” 13 named
employees of the Complex “that have [the Appellant’s] name in them from 09/30/25
until 01/05/26.” In a timely response, the Complex provided the requested records,
consisting of 34 pages, but stated it had made “limited redactions . . . for the security
of the institution per KRS 61.878(1)(l) 1 and KRS 197.025(1).” Specifically, the
Complex stated “the disclosure of portions of the emails containing email addresses,
full names of staff, and records of opinions and recommendations would constitute a
threat to the security of the institution, institutional staff, or others.” This appeal
followed.

After this appeal was initiated, the Complex reversed its decision to redact
names and email addresses of staff members, and released the records to the
Appellant with that information included. Therefore, as to the names and email
addresses, this appeal is moot. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 6 (“If the requested documents are
made available to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney
General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter.”).

1 KRS 61.878(1)(l) exempts from disclosure “[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which
is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly.”

According to the Complex, the remaining redactions consist of “only the names
and institutional numbers of other inmates as well as information pertaining to those
other inmates.” Under KRS 197.025(2), “the department shall not be required to
comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined [in] any facility[,]
unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that
individual.” When a request encompasses “portions of records [that] do not contain a
specific reference to the requesting inmate,” those portions may be redacted. 16-ORD-
092 (citing 04-ORD-071); see also 09-ORD-095. Thus, the names and institutional
numbers of other inmates may be redacted under KRS 197.025(2), as they do not
contain a specific reference to the Appellant. See 19-ORD-207.

With regard to other information pertaining to inmates other than the
Appellant, KRS 197.025(1) provides that “no person shall have access to any records
if the disclosure is deemed by the commissioner of the department or his designee to
constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff,
the institution, or any other person.” Here, the Complex states it redacted
“information related to the movement and location of other inmates as well as the
resolution of disciplinary matters related to other inmates,” the disclosure of which
“could leave other inmates at an increased risk of attacks, fights, or retaliation.”

The Office has historically deferred to the judgment of correctional facilities in
determining whether the release of certain records would constitute a security threat
under KRS 197.025(1), including the release to an inmate of information about
another inmate. See, e.g., 22-ORD-223. More specifically, the Office has upheld the
redaction of information relating to the movement and location of other inmates and
disciplinary records of other inmates. See, e.g., 17-ORD-229; 16-ORD-070; 07-ORD-
039. Therefore, under the facts of this appeal, the Office defers to the judgment of the
Complex to determine that release of the redacted portions would pose a security
threat under KRS 197.025(1). Therefore, the Complex did not violate the Act when it
redacted portions of records containing information about other inmates.

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

Jeremy Brooks, #222579
Charles Bates, Esq.
Nathan Goens, Esq.
Ms. Sara Talarigo
Ms. Ann Smith