A principle older than the Kentucky open records law itself: "The payment of [public] funds . . . is a matter with which the public has a substantial concern, against which little weight can be accorded to any desire of the plaintiff in that suit to keep secret the amount of money he received."

Courier Journal & Louisville Times Co. v. McDonald, Ky., 524 S.W.2d 633 (1974). https://casetext.com/case/courier-journal-v-mcdonald

The principle has since been reaaffirmed on at least two occasions—Lexington-Fayette v. Herald-Leader Co, 941 S.W.2d 469 (Ky. 1997) and Central Kentucky New Journal v. George 306S.W.3d 41 (Ky. 2010)—both cases recognizing:

"t]here could be no viable contention that an agreement which represents the final settlement of a civil lawsuit whereby a governmental entity pays public funds to compensate for an injury it inflicted is not a public record."

https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/1997/96-sc-399-dg-1…

The existence of a confidentiality agreement in such a settlement does not abridge the public's right to know.

"[A] confidentiality clause reached by the agreement of parties to litigation cannot in and of itself create an inherent right to privacy superior to and exempt from the statutory mandate for disclosure contained in the Open Records Act. . . . In balancing the sacrosanct right of an individual to privacy against legitimate public concerns and the right of the public to inquire into the workings of government, we find that a settlement of litigation between private citizens and a governmental entity is a matter of legitimate public concern which the public is entitled to scrutinize. A confidentiality clause in such an agreement is not entitled to protection."

Lexington-Fayette v Herald-Leader https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/1997/96-sc-399-dg-1…