Skip to main content
Image
Official seal of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General

The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:

1. 24-ORD-115 (In re: WDRB News/Transportation Cabinet)

Summary: The Transportation Cabinet violated the Open Records Act when it failed to meet its burden to support redacting information from records relating to the performance of a contract under KRS 61.878(1)(c)1. Such information is only exempt when it is confidentially disclosed to an agency or required to be disclosed to it and generally recognized as confidential or proprietary, and its disclosure would permit an unfair commercial advantage to competitors.

https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-115.pdf

2. 24-ORD-116 (In re: Michael P. Moore/Kentucky State Police)

Summary: The Kentucky State Police did not violate the Open Records Act, when it redacted or withheld information which is exempted from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a), (k), and (q).

https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-116.pdf

3. 24-ORD-117 (In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky Department of Corrections)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Kentucky Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties.

https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-117.pdf

4. 24-ORD-118 (In re: Brenda Rosen/University of Kentucky)

Summary: The University of Kentucky did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request to inspect text messages on privately-owned devices because the request did not seek records prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the University.

https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-118.pdf

5. 24-ORD-119 (In re: Lexington Herald–Leader/City of Richmond)

Summary: The City of Richmond violated the Open Records Act when it denied a request for records without explaining how the attorney-client privilege applied to the records it withheld. On appeal, the City met its burden to show that the attorney-client privilege applied to disputed communications. The City also carried its burden of showing that KRS 61.878(1)(i) applies to withhold an anonymous email alleging employee misconduct until the City’s investigation concludes and final action is taken.

https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2024-OROM/2024/24-ORD-119.pdf

Categories