Kentucky's open records law extends no protection to post-decisional memoranda and promotes waiver of arguably applicable protections (exceptions):

"[A] rigid-exemption reading runs directly counter to th[e open records law's] policy by insisting upon nondisclosure even when the exemption's intended beneficiaries believe disclosure is appropriate. We understand the General Assembly to have mandated, in the absence of a waiver, the non-disclosure of exempt records, a mandate the person or entity whose interest the exemption protects may seek to enforce in the circuit court. Disclosure of an otherwise exempt record is not precluded, however, if the intended beneficiaries of the exemption waive their right to non-disclosure."

https://casetext.com/case/lawson-v-office-of-the-attorney-gen

From MSNBC:

"In March 2019, on the weekend when Attorney General William Barr and senior advisers in the Justice Department were planning how to release information about special counsel Robert Mueller's report, a memo was written that served, in effect, as political cover for Barr's efforts to undermine aspects of the report to Congress, in the media and, ultimately, with the public.

"More than two years later, the Biden administration continues to press to keep that cover hidden from the public. The move to keep the memo secret is the path of least resistance from a Justice Department that too often defaults to protecting government actions — even when the right answer is to break with the past as a necessary step to protect our future.

"The Merrick Garland Justice Department this week announced that it would appeal part of a lower court decision ordering the release of that memo in the Freedom of Information case, brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW. The case and the Justice Department's decision to appeal raise questions about where the Justice Department's loyalty ultimately lies, as a former lawyer at the Office of Legal Counsel explained. 'This administration needs to make the facts and truth its lodestar, rather than protecting Trump administration actions,' Erica Newland, a former attorney adviser at the Office of Legal Counsel who is now counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, said in an interview Tuesday. 'If it doesn't, that's troubling.'

"How the Justice Department got here isn't all that surprising. The instinct of government lawyers is to protect governmental action — with an eye toward the effect of precedent on other cases and the potential consequences for future administrations. The problem of this instinct is that it goes only one way — ratcheting up protections and power for the government, at the cost of the governed.

For two distinct reasons, that instinct is particularly harmful in the Justice Department's decision to fight the release of the Engel-O'Callaghan memo.

"Efforts by the Justice Department to use the Freedom of Information Act's exemptions to allow the government to keep Part II of this memo hidden from the public further undermine the goals of FOIA — at a time when confidence in government is shaky and transparency is more important than ever.

"As the Justice Department did with the first part of the memo, it could release the full memo without a fight. Yes, future litigants could cite the district court decision, but the circumstances of the case — which involve serious questions about whether the Justice Department was insulating the president from accusations of having possibly obstructed justice — limit its future application. As emails released as part of CREW's litigation make clear, Barr's letter to Congress and the Office of Legal Counsel memo were prepared in tandem, in overlapping emails involving the same people, with the letter's actually being completed before the memo — all of which led Jackson to rule that the sought-after FOIA exemption didn't apply.

"The judge already tried to make it easy for the Justice Department to do the right thing. Noting that it was based on the 'unique set of circumstances,' Jackson specifically added that the decision 'does not purport to question or weaken the protections provided by [FOIA] Exemption 5 or the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.'

"Nonetheless, the Justice Department continues to fight to keep the memo secret.

"For its part, CREW, the group behind the lawsuit to make the memo public, is not only ready to keep litigating for the memo's release — it is ready to fight back.

'The Department of Justice had an opportunity to come clean, turn over the memo, and close the book on the politicization and dishonesty of the past four years. Last night it chose not to do so,' Noah Bookbinder, CREW's president, said in a statement Tuesday. 'We will be fighting this in court.'"