26-ORD-116 – William Cope/Southeast State Correctional Complex

Opinion Content:

March 23, 2026

In re: William Cope/Southeast State Correctional Complex

Summary: The Southeast State Correctional Complex (“the Complex”)
did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not fulfill a
request for information that failed to describe public records to be
inspected.

Open Records Decision

On February 10, 2026, inmate William Cope (“the Appellant”) submitted a
“Request to Inspect Public Records” form to the Complex with the inquiry, “Do I have
any upcoming court appearances?” The Appellant provided the case number of a
pending civil action in an unidentified circuit court. In a timely response on February
11, 2026, the Complex stated that the Appellant’s file contained “no documentation
regarding the requested case number” and that the Department of Corrections does
not retain records pertaining to civil actions. This appeal followed. 1

On appeal, the Complex notes the Appellant did not request to inspect records,
but only asked whether he had “any upcoming court appearances.” The Complex
therefore asserts it need not honor the request because “an agency is not obligated to
honor a request for information under the law.”

The Act does not require public agencies to answer interrogatories or provide
information. Rather, it requires public agencies to produce public records for
inspection. See KRS 61.872(2)(a) (a request to inspect records must include, among
other things, a description of “the records to be inspected”); see also Dep’t of Revenue

1 The Appellant provided, as part of his appeal, a copy of a letter dated February 11, 2026, in which
he purportedly replied to the Complex’s response and stated he wished to “inspect [his] entire record
on file within [the Complex’s] data base & all hard copies.” The Complex, however, denies having
received that letter. The Office cannot adjudicate disputed issues of fact, such as whether an agency
received a request to inspect records. See, e.g., 24-ORD-040. Additionally, the Appellant initiated this
appeal by mail on February 13, 2026, prior to the time when the Complex’s five-day response period
would have expired for a request submitted on February 11, 2026. See KRS 61.880(1); KRS 197.025(7).

v. Eifler, 436 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Ky. App. 2013) (“The [Act] does not dictate that public
agencies must gather and supply information not regularly kept as part of [their]
records.”). Here, the Appellant requested only information—whether he had
upcoming court appearances in a civil action. Although that information may appear
somewhere in the Complex’s records, 2 the Appellant did not describe any public
records he wished to inspect. Thus, the Complex had no duty under the Act to provide
the requested information. Accordingly, the Complex did not violate 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

William Cope, #197416
Charles B. Bates, Esq.
Nathan Goens, Esq.
Ms. Sara Talarigo
Ms. Ann Smith

2 The Complex states that it received a copy of a scheduling order in the civil action after this appeal
was initiated and will provide that document to the Appellant upon request.