Annotations for Statute

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).

An inmate was entitled to an award of costs where the Department of Corrections improperly denied the inmate access to records pertaining to a disciplinary proceeding against him. Blair v. Hendricks, 30 S.W.3d 802, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 69 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000), overruled in part, Lang v. Sapp, 71 S.W.3d 133, 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 452 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002).

An inmate was properly denied the discretionary fine provided for in the statute in connection with the Department of Correction’s denial of access to records of a disciplinary proceeding against him where there was no proof that the department’s actions were wilful or that the failure damaged the inmate in any way, and it appeared that the department merely made a good faith denial of records. Blair v. Hendricks, 30 S.W.3d 802, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 69 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000), overruled in part, Lang v. Sapp, 71 S.W.3d 133, 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 452 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002).

Board of Education v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Com., 625 S.W.2d 109, 1981 Ky. App. LEXIS 302 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981); Kentucky Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 35 (Ky. 1992); Frankfort Pub. Co. v. Kentucky State University Foundation, Inc., 834 S.W.2d 681, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 103 (Ky. 1992); Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 116 (Ky. 2008); Commonwealth v. Scorsone, 251 S.W.3d 328, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 40 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008); Parish v. Petter, 608 S.W.3d 638, 2020 Ky. App. LEXIS 100 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020);                         Courier-Journal, Inc. v. Shively Police Dep't, 2022 Ky. App. LEXIS 99 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022).

Circuit court properly award a newspaper penalties and attorney’s fees because the Cabinet for Economic Development had no legal basis for denying the names of a private company’s shareholders after the company disclosed them. Commonwealth v. Courier-Journal, Inc., 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 90 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019, sub. op., 2019 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 633 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019).

Circuit court properly dismissed a city’s complaint against a petitioner and awarded him attorney’s fees and statutory penalties because the city and its ethics commission wrongfully withheld public records from the petitioner without a good faith basis or plausible justification, they continued in a pattern of improperly denying and delaying the petitioner’s exercise of rights under the Open Records Act, and, while the commission was the entity that withheld the documents, it was merely a division of the city. City of Taylorsville Ethics Comm'n v. Trageser, 604 S.W.3d 305, 2020 Ky. App. LEXIS 73 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020).

Circuit court's award of attorney's fees and costs to the newspapers was affirmed where substantial evidence supported the finding of willfulness under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.882(5), and the circuit court properly interpreted the statute to permit an award of up to $25 per day for each particular record that an agency improperly and willfully withheld. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. Courier-Journal, Inc., 493 S.W.3d 375, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).

Court of Appeals of Kentucky cannot agree that the General Assembly's mere use of the word “person” in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.882(5) demonstrated so clear an intent that penalties be imposed on a per person basis as to show the trial court's reading unreasonable or erroneous. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. Courier-Journal, Inc., 493 S.W.3d 375, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).

Former medical resident student did not establish that a university’s initial decision to withhold records from her was done willfully, particularly when there was evidence that university officials were not aware that the other documents existed, and once they learned of the other records, they produced them to the student; also the student could not recover the requested attorney’s fees and costs.  Shyamashree Sinha v. Univ. of Ky., 284 S.W.3d 159, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).

General Assembly mandated the non-disclosure of exempt records, a mandate the person or entity whose interest the exemption protects may seek to enforce in the circuit court; disclosure of an exempt record is not precluded if the intended beneficiaries waive their right to non-disclosure, and the statutory mandate that prosecutorial files be and remain totally exempt accords the prosecutor an unlimited discretion to deny disclosure, but it does not preclude him or her from allowing it. Lawson v. Office of the AG, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013).

In a case under the Kentucky Open Records Act, a claim against an attorney for the Kentucky Education and Workforce Development Cabinet in his official capacity was properly dismissed because the Commonwealth had not waived its immunity. The suit against the attorney in his official capacity was essentially a suit against the Cabinet. Taylor v. Maxson, 483 S.W.3d 852, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 15 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).

In this action involving the failure of the Shively Police Department (SPD) to make disclosures pursuant to the Open Records Act (the ORA) on the basis that it would cause harm to an ongoing criminal investigation, SPD must justify that withholding the records was still necessary based on the specific concerns it raised earlier. Courier-Journal, Inc. v. Shively Police Dep't, 2022 Ky. App. LEXIS 99 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022).

It was not clearly erroneous to award a newspaper attorney's fees, costs, and penalties for a violation of the Open Records Act by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Cabinet) because, by first denying the requested records existed, the Cabinet acted willfully. Cabinet v. Todd Cnty. Std., 488 S.W.3d 1, 2015 Ky. App. LEXIS 171 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).

Lawsuit should not have been filed against an attorney for the Kentucky Education and Workforce Development Cabinet based on an allegation that there was a failure to respond in 3 days because the Kentucky General Assembly intended suits based on violations of the Kentucky Open Records Act, including the time provisions at issue here, to be brought against the state agencies themselves and not against the individuals employed by those agencies. Taylor v. Maxson, 483 S.W.3d 852, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 15 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016).

Matter was remanded to the circuit court for a supplemental award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal; under KRS 61.882(5), upon a showing of a willful withholding, the reporters were entitled to any fees and costs incurred with the legal action, which would include fees and costs incurred in defending the judgment on appeal. Commonwealth v. Lexington H-L Servs., 382 S.W.3d 875, 2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 216 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).

Newspaper was entitled to fees, costs, and sanctions due to a city’s total refusal to furnish even previously released materials. The trial court’s failure to make such an award was an abuse of discretion. Cincinnati Enquirer v. City of Fort Thomas, 2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 202 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2011).

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).

Since emails between a city mayor and the city council members were preliminary discussions concerning what course of action to take with respect to a financial controversy regarding a local convention center, they were within the exemption from disclosure of the Open Records Act pursuant to KRS 61.878(1), and a city and the mayor were not liable for willfully withholding records under KRS 61.882(5). Baker v. Jones, 199 S.W.3d 749, 2006 Ky. App. LEXIS 12 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).

Trial court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission (LRC) regarding a newspaper’s request for legislative records because (1) the court’s statutory jurisdiction was not limited to records requests or cases where the LRC issued no decision in 30 days, and (2) the Open Records Act’s statutory judicial review right was incorporated into the governing statute. Harilson v. Shepherd, 585 S.W.3d 748, 2019 Ky. LEXIS 380 (Ky. 2019).

University violated the Kentucky Open Records Act because it refused to allow the Attorney General (AG) to review redacted records requested by the student newspaper; the refusal made the AG’s review of the matter impossible, leaving the AG with no alternative but to decide that the university had release the records to the newspaper.  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).