Table Of Content

o Orrice oF THE GOVERNOR Jamun 22,209 oe iets Mat at: Chapmen Mage News beet me sia AVIA Highland Avenue Somerville, Massachusetts 02144-2516 [Ret Your open records request Dear Mr, Chaprian: The Kentucky Governor's Offive received your open records roquest dated January 22, 2019 for cettain information trom “all non-personal erails [sic] accourts in tise by the {Glowernor and [his] slaff” You requested a date range af between March 5, 2018 aud March 9, 2018, By "non-personal emails [sie] accounts,” T'm interpreting you to mean an employee's state-fssued email account Your requost is denied. You have impemnissibly requested infocmation as opposed to records. The Open Records Act is not directed at the former, but instead the latter. ISORD-056 (“A public agency is not required fo honcir a request for information tor ty create a record in response Lo an open records request.”). Althomgh your request ‘nominally asks for the following “records,” you then list the “following information” that you actually want—"I'rom address,” “To address,” “bec addresses,” “co addronses/” Time,” and “Date.” Taken as a whole, (Lis clear that, at base, your request is onc for information, not far recards, Fer that reason, your request is denied. Sev id, ‘To the extent your request can be interpreted to ask for recurds with the information you want, your request is denied. For unc thing, we do not have any records sith ony the requested information. See id ("A public agency eannol produce nonexistent records for inspection ar copying .-.."}, Moreover, to the extent your request asks the Governor's Ciffice lo pull every email from every employer over a five-day period in 2018 and then rruact everything sxcepl the “following information” you want, your request is denied. That would be an enormous undertaking that wauld impose an Kentucky seonichyunbrid use con “unceasonabile burden” on the Governor's Office. Sez KRS 61.872(6). ttaise is a back-dnor allempt to get information that you are not otherwise entitled to under the Open Recor» ‘Act. That is not the purpose of the redaction provision in the Open Records Act, See KRS '61.878(4). The Govemer’s Office also notes that many, pochaps most, of the redacted emails would be protected from disclosure for ont: reason or another under the Open Records Act—for example, as attomey-client communications ur pscliminacy correspondence, Please contact me with any questions: Sincerely, Methhard Ll. Matthew F. Kulu Deputy General Counsel