Annotations for Statute

Absolute privilege does not extend so far as to cloak with immunity one who, with a malicious purpose and under no legal compulsion to do so, creates defamatory material with the expectation that it would be published. Therefore, in a defamation case, a former employer was unable to argue that it was absolutely privileged because it was required to release a termination memorandum under the Kentucky Open Records Act. Hill v. Ky. Lottery Corp., 327 S.W.3d 412, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 317 (Ky. 2010).

Amendment to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870(1(h) which exempted a private company from the Open Records Act was not retroactive because (1) no authority showed the amendment simply clarified existing law, (2) the amendment was not remedial, and (3) a fiscal court's right to inspect the company's records vested when the fiscal court requested the records before the amendment was enacted. Util. Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Pike Cty. Fiscal Court, 531 S.W.3d 3, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 441 (Ky. 2017).

Any common law regarding access to records maintained by public agencies was codified and preempted by the General Assembly’s passage of the Open Records Act. University of Kentucky v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 830 S.W.2d 373, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 55 (Ky. 1992).

As the status of a public university’s foundation as a public entity under KRS 61.870 had not been clearly established, it was reasonable for donors to the foundation who requested anonymity to expect their request to be honored. Therefore, a newspaper was properly denied access to donor identities and the amounts of their donations under Kentucky's Open Records Act. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008).

Blanket redaction of descriptions of particular services rendered by nongovernment lawyers to various agencies in the governor’s administration was improper under the Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 to 61.884, as the attorney-client privilege under KRE 503 did not apply to every communication between an attorney and a client. Commonwealth v. Scorsone, 251 S.W.3d 328, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 40 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).

By virtue of county attorney’s election to participate in program relating to state’s goal of reducing welfare roles by collecting child support payments for welfare recipients, attorney acted as an agent of the Cabinet for Human Resources with respect to administration of the program, and to that extent, attorney was subject to the Open Records Act which governed disclosure of documents related to the program. Edmondson v. Alig, 926 S.W.2d 856, 1996 Ky. App. LEXIS 124 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).

Circuit court properly found that the operator of a hospital was a public agency and within the scope of Kentucky's Open Records Act because a majority of the operator's board of directors were appointed by a university, itself a public agency. Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. ACLU of Ky., Inc., 467 S.W.3d 790, 2014 Ky. App. LEXIS 159 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014).

Due process does not require an appellate court to lay out for inspection by the appellant, even in a capital case, all of the information in its hands from which it may seek perspective and guidance in reviewing the propriety of his sentence. Ex parte Farley, 570 S.W.2d 617, 1978 Ky. LEXIS 390 (Ky. 1978).

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) did not bar a university from releasing to a newspaper all records sought under the Open Records Act because, while FERPA barred release of unredacted education records contained in a Title IX investigation file, not all the records sought were education records directly relating to a student.  Kernel Press, Inc. v. Univ. of Ky., 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019, sub. op., 2019 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 905 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019).

Former Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870(1(h) was not unconstitutional for being vague because the statute was not void-as-unintelligible, as (1) the people the statute affected could understand the statute, and (2) courts could deduce the legislature's will, as undefined terms found to render the statute unintelligible were commonly defined. Util. Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Pike Cty. Fiscal Court, 531 S.W.3d 3, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 441 (Ky. 2017).

Future donors to the University of Lousiville Foundation are on notice that their gifts are being made to a public institution and, therefore, are subject to disclosure under KRS 61.871 regardless of any requests for anonymity. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008).

KRS 61.878 exempts Governor’s daily appointment ledgers from media inspection and summary judgment denying their availability to newspaper under the Open Records Act was appropriate. Courier-Journal v. Jones, 895 S.W.2d 6, 1995 Ky. App. LEXIS 58 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).

Kentucky Lottery Corporation did not have absolute privilege with respect to a termination memo in a defamation claim by discharged employees. The employees’  alleged more than the simple disclosure of documents prepared in the regular course of business and placed in their personnel files; they presented evidence that their supervisors maliciously created defamatory memoranda so that they would be subject to an open records disclosure, and concealed the existence of the documents to impede the employees’ ability to invoke an exemption to the Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 et. seq. Hill v. Ky. Lottery Corp., 2010 Ky. LEXIS 82 (Ky. Apr. 22, 2010), sub. op., 327 S.W.3d 412, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 317 (Ky. 2010), modified, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 318 (Ky. Dec. 16, 2010).

Kentucky State Bd. of Medical Licensure v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 663 S.W.2d 953, 1983 Ky. App. LEXIS 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983); Kentucky Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 35 (Ky. 1992).

Medical records of patients in public hospital were not related to the functioning of the hospital, the activities carried on by the hospital, its programs or its operations and, as such, were not public records under this section. Hardin County v. Valentine, 894 S.W.2d 151, 1995 Ky. App. LEXIS 48 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).

Names of donors to a public university’s foundation who had not requested anonymity were subject to the disclosure requirement of KRS 61.871, as the foundation was a public entity under KRS 61.870, and the donors had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008).

Nothing in the Kentucky Open Records Act conditions an individual’s right to obtain public records on his purpose in seeking those records; further, the propriety of assessing a penalty against non-compliant officials does not depend on whether harm befell the person who is denied records under KRS 61.882(5). Therefore, the fact that an inmate might not have been harmed by the failure to disclose jail records was irrelevant. Eplion v. Burchett, 354 S.W.3d 598, 2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 215 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).

Pre-amendment version of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870(1)(h) was constitutional as it was sufficiently definite that a common man of ordinary intelligence could read and subscribe meaning to it. Pike Cnty. Fiscal Court v. Util. Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 2015 Ky. App. LEXIS 88 (Ky. Ct. App. June 12, 2015, sub. op., 2015 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 880 (Ky. Ct. App. June 12, 2015).

Private company was subject to the former Open Records Act because (1) the company could be a “body” under  Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870(1)(h), and (2) the company derived virtually all the company's income from a water district and city.  Util. Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Pike Cty. Fiscal Court, 531 S.W.3d 3, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 441 (Ky. 2017).

Public records protected by the attorney-client privilege are ordinarily excludable from the disclosure requirements of the Open Records Act. Hahn v. Univ. of Louisville, 80 S.W.3d 771, 2001 Ky. App. LEXIS 84 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001).