Annotations for Statute

A county school system was required to release statistical information relating to student disciplinary hearings without redacting the particular school and offense that appeared on those records, while redacting all information that would reveal any personal characteristics of the student, including name or age, or information that would reasonably lead to identification of the student. Hardin County Schs v. Foster, 40 S.W.3d 865, 2001 Ky. LEXIS 45 (Ky. 2001).

A criminal defendant is not entitled to a copy of his or her presentence investigation report both at the presentence and post-conviction stages. Commonwealth v. Bush, 740 S.W.2d 943, 1987 Ky. LEXIS 264 (Ky. 1987).

A party affected by the decision of a public agency to release records pursuant to the Kentucky Open Records Act had standing to contest the agency decision in court where the disclosure of information in the public record would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Beckham v. Board of Educ., 873 S.W.2d 575, 1994 Ky. LEXIS 22 (Ky. 1994).

Although KRS 17.150(5) provides for common remedies by establishing that “[t]he provisions of KRS Chapter 61 dealing with administrative and judicial remedies for inspection of public records and penalties for violations thereof shall be applicable to this section,” such provision does not automatically equate investigative reports relating to prosecutions (governed by KRS 17.150(2)) with those compiled for administrative adjudications (governed by subdivision (1)(f) of this section); these remain separate matters. Louisville v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 637 S.W.2d 658, 1982 Ky. App. LEXIS 232 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982).

Although the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act precluded a university from releasing to a student newspaper unredacted education records contained in a Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 investigation file, the circuit court’s finding that all the requested records were exempt from disclosure was not supported by substantial evidence because some records were not directly related to any student, such as a camera manual, University policies, and scheduling notes. 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).

Although the former employees alleged that the general manager’s production of the disciplinary action forms in response to a record request was actionable because, at least as to two employees, the forms contained untrue statements about the employees acting dishonestly when they examined confidential information on the employer’s computer system without permission following one of the employee’s discharge, the general manager’s decisions to discharge the employees were not conditional and did not need the board of directors’  approval; the general manager had the authority to terminate employees, and the terminations represented his final action. That the discharges could potentially have been set aside by the board during the grievance hearing did not transform the disciplinary action forms into preliminary drafts, notes, or correspondence. Burgess v. Paducah Area Transit Auth., 387 Fed. Appx. 538, 2010 FED App. 0421N, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14384 (6th Cir. Ky. 2010).

Appellant was not entitled to inspect the personnel file of the prosecuting attorney in appellant’s criminal case under the Kentucky Open Records Act because disclosure amounted to a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under KRS 61.878(1)(a) and served no public purpose. Valentine v. Pers. Cabinet, 322 S.W.3d 505, 2010 Ky. App. LEXIS 139 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010).

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).

Because records that identified registered payers of utility license tax easily could be redacted to comply with privacy requirements and a state website did not provide an alternative remedy, the records were not exempt from open records disclosure after redaction; moreover, the evidence supported a finding that the documents requested were maintained. Dep't of Revenue v. Eifler, 436 S.W.3d 530, 2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 140 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).

Because the Circuit Court never determined whether certain requested materials were subject to one of the fourteen exclusions listed in KRS 61.878(1), the matter had to be remanded to the Circuit Court to make a determination as to whether the materials an attorney requested were specifically excluded under one or more of the fourteen listed exclusions. Wyrick v. Dep't of Revenue, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 169 (Ky. Ct. App. May 30, 2008), aff'd, 323 S.W.3d 710, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 260 (Ky. 2010).

Because the Supreme Court is guided by the principle that under general rules of statutory construction it may not interpret a statute at variance with its stated language, the stated language of subdivision (1)(c)2.b. of this section seems quite clear: an entity seeking tax credits pursuant to KRS Chapter 154 need not disclose confidential information submitted in applying for such credits. Hoy v. Kentucky Indus. Revitalization Auth., 907 S.W.2d 766, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 125 (Ky. 1995).

Because the privacy interests of injured employees in personal details, such as home address, telephone number, and social security numbers, appearing on the S.F.1 forms required to be filed with Department of Worker’s Claims pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Act substantially outweigh the negligible Open Records Act related public interest in disclosure, such disclosure would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under subsection (1)(a) of this section. Zink v. Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet, 902 S.W.2d 825, 1994 Ky. App. LEXIS 141 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994).

Business’s proposal lost its status as preliminary and therefore the exemption in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878(1)(i), (j) did not apply; the proposal was merely an offer submitted in response to the company’s request, and the proposal remained subject to additional negotiation and approval by other agencies. However, once the company excluded the business from its list of finalists, the proposal was no longer subject to change, and thus the final action occurred at that point. Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov't v. Courier-Journal, Inc., 605 S.W.3d 72, 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 147 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).

Circuit court did not err finding that the analysis of internal affairs (IA) documents under the Kentucky Open Records Act did not end once the documents had been classified under the preliminary exception of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878(i) and (j) as the files did not maintain an indefinite preliminary status. However, that same statutory authority provided the state police with a limited authority to withhold portions of the IA file concerning any disciplinary recommendations or opinions not relied upon by the Commissioner in his final decision. Commonwealth v. Trageser, 600 S.W.3d 749, 2020 Ky. App. LEXIS 52 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020).

Circuit court made an erroneous factual conclusion that all the records in the investigation file were covered by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) because although the university was prohibited from releasing for the Attorney General’s in camera review education records with unredacted personally identifying information, not all the records requested were education records, and FERPA did not prohibit their release. 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).

Circuit court properly affirmed an Attorney General’s opinion on an Open Records Act request that the audit documents at issue were subject to disclosure because the preliminary-records exception did not apply where a university took its final action based upon the information revealed during the audits, the audits were not prepared or conducted under the direction of counsel or intended to be disclosed only to counsel for the purposes of preparing legal advice, and the audit documents were not subject to the work-product doctrine since they were prepared in the course of the university’s normal business oversight of a clinic’s operation, and only remotely in anticipation of potential litigation. Univ. of Ky. v. Lexington H-L Servs., 579 S.W.3d 858, 2018 Ky. App. LEXIS 238 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).

Company’s interest in relocating was extensively publicized, and this publicity amounted to a public disclosure of the company’s interest in relocating within the Commonwealth, such that the exception to disclosure under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878(1)(d) did not apply. Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov't v. Courier-Journal, Inc., 605 S.W.3d 72, 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 147 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).

Complaint against police officer, charging specific acts of misconduct while on duty, presented a matter of unique public interest; while the allegations were of a personal nature, their disclosure would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the officer’s privacy and, therefore, be exempt from public disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a). Palmer v. Driggers, 60 S.W.3d 591, 2001 Ky. App. LEXIS 1165 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001).

County’s redaction of a suspect’s identity from a disclosed police investigation file was proper under circumstances in which the suspect was not charged with or arrested for the alleged rape investigated; although a newspaper maintained that the public had a legitimate interest in monitoring police conduct and in ensuring that the investigation was handled properly, the newspaper had been provided some 900 pages of documents concerning the investigation, and had never established or even maintained that these documents were insufficient to fully investigate the police conduct, and failed to show how disclosure of the suspect’s identity would have furthered such an interest under the facts of this case. The suspect’s intrinsic personal privacy interest outweighed the nebulously asserted public interest, and the KRS 61.878(1)(a) personal privacy exemption applied. Lexington H-L Servs. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 297 S.W.3d 579, 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 51 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).

Department of Correction’s argument regarding the unreasonable burden of complying with open records requests of inmates as a whole class of people missed the mark because the unreasonable burden language in KRS 61.872(6) focused on a singular “application,” not a group of applications from an entire class of applicants. Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 116 (Ky. 2008).