Annotations for Statute

Unpublished decision: Department of Revenue was required to produce for inspection redacted copies of its final rulings because the production of the material a tax attorney and tax analysts sought was required by the Open Records Act; the Department's final rulings contained information related to its reasoning and analysis with respect to its task in administration of the tax laws, and that information could be made available without jeopardizing taxpayers' privacy interests under the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights.  Fin. & Admin. Cabinet v. Sommer, 2017 Ky. App. LEXIS 9 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2017, sub. op., 2017 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 624 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2017).

Unredacted copies of final settlement agreements which showed payments made by government in connection with lawsuits against the police department were not covered by the privacy exception contained in subdivision (1)(a) of this section even though two (2) or three (3) of the agreements contained confidentiality clauses whereby settlement recipients and their attorneys agreed not to disclose the terms of the agreements. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co., 941 S.W.2d 469, 1997 Ky. LEXIS 38 (Ky. 1997).

When a newspaper sought a police department’s entire file in a murder case, the file was not categorically exempt due to the potential that the defendant in the murder case would collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction, due to the file’s relation to a prospective law enforcement action, because, inter alia, Skaggs v. Redford, exempting a prosecutor’s litigation file from disclosure, did not apply to the police department’s file. City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013).

When a newspaper sought a police department’s entire file in a murder case, the file was not categorically exempt due to the potential that the defendant in the murder case would collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction, due to the file’s relation to a prospective law enforcement action, because, inter alia, a city made no attempt to identify potentially exempt material in the file. City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013).

When a newspaper sought a police department’s entire file in a murder case, the file was not categorically exempt due to the potential that the defendant in the murder case would collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction, due to the file’s relation to a prospective law enforcement action, because, inter alia, the exemption in KRS 61.878(1)(h) was properly invoked only when a record’s release, due to the record’s content, posed more than a hypothetical risk of harm. City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013).

Where a school district employee settled her lawsuit against one school district for sexual harassment by a district official and a second lawsuit against another district for allegedly wrongfully failing to hire her, the lower courts erred in denying a newspaper’s request for access to the settlement agreements under the Kentucky Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 to 61.884, because the settlement of litigation between a government agency and one of its employees and a private citizen and a governmental entity were matters of legitimate public concern that the public is entitled to scrutinize. A confidentiality clause in such agreements was not entitled to protection. Cent. Ky. News-Journal v. George, 306 S.W.3d 41, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 72 (Ky. 2010).

Where a university appealed a circuit’s denial of its motion for summary judgment, the university had not violated the Open Records Act; the circuit court and the Officer of the Attorney General incorrectly determined that the four e-mails at issue lost the preliminary status afforded to them by KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) because the e-mails were incorporated into a final agency action, a meeting, and thus had to be disclosed. There had been no final agency action. Univ. of Louisville v. Sharp, 416 S.W.3d 313, 2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 161 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).

Where county attorney did not attempt to establish that disclosure of records relating to child support payments requested by attorney representing father of minor child would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and where county attorney did not reference relevant state or federal law barring disclosure or explain its application to the disputed records, county attorney’s response failed to conform to KRS 61.880(2)(c) and KRS 61.882(3). Edmondson v. Alig, 926 S.W.2d 856, 1996 Ky. App. LEXIS 124 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).

While the interests reckoned on the privacy side of the balance generally do not dissipate, and in some instances even grow stronger, with the passage of time, it is no less true that the public’s interest in knowing what the government is up to includes a strong historical interest in knowing what the government was up to; the passage of time, therefore, while a factor relevant to the balancing of interests required by the privacy exemption, will seldom be dispositive in-and-of itself. Lawson v. Office of the AG, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013).