The Louisville Amazon HQ2 open records dispute has finally been resolved in favor of public access and against Louisville's claims that its Amazon bid was protected from open records disclosure.

The dispute prompted lawmakers to unsuccessfully press for a new exception to the open records law for unsuccessful incentive packages (read: Louisville Amazon bid package) as well as investor identity (read: the investors in Braidy Industries).

https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/626753184538074/?extid=I…

In 2019, the Courier Journal prevailed in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The court rejected the city's reliance on the preliminary documents exceptions and an exception for records "pertaining to a prospective location of a business or industry where no previous public disclosure has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating in, relocating within or expanding within the Commonwealth."

https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-appeals/2019/2018-ca-001…

The Court of Appeals ruled that the bid forfeited its preliminary character when it was rejected by Amazon. Further, it ruled that the exception for records relating to a hitherto undisclosed prospective business location was inapplicable since Louisville's efforts to attract Amazon were widely known.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=48230

Undeterred, the City petitioned the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the issues. Exercising it's discretionary power, the Court recently denied the city's petition, and the Court of Appeals published opinion favoring public access became final.

Another important win for open government. And another published opinion reaffirming the principle that the open records exceptions must be strictly construed and given no broader application than is necessary to effectuate their purpose.