Skip to main content
Proffer given to the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General relating to a company’s business practices was not exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a) because disclosure did not amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy; the proffer was not inherently personal. Moreover, there was a diminished expectation of privacy in the information that was given since it was known that it could have been used in future civil or criminal litigation. Lawson v. Office of the Atty., 2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 44 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2012), aff'd, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013).
Case Annotation Categories
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.