Standard for Nondisclosure
| Cited | Statutes | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870 | 61.872, 61.878 | Kentucky State Police violated the Open Records Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.870 et seq., by failing to produce its entire Uniform Citation File database when requested by a reporter where the time and manpower required to separate exempt material, standing alone, was not sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to show an unreasonable burden under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.872(6). Moreover, the undisputed evidence noted that the necessary categorical extractions could be performed for $15,000, and electronically separating exempt material was not equivalent to creating a new record given the mandate in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878(4). Commonwealth v. Courier Journal, 601 S.W.3d 501, 2020 Ky. App. LEXIS 42 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020). Link |
| 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 1 | 61.878 | Records that a fired program coordinator requested from an urban county government were privileged as information obtained during an investigation conducted by a law firm that was acting as the urban government’s attorney; therefore, the information was not discoverable. Meriwether v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 1 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2002). Link |
| 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 169 | 61.878 | 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). Link |
| Board of Ed. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty | 61.878 | In light of the clear recognition of an individual’s right of privacy in Kentucky, the question of whether, absent a court order, information should be withheld from disclosure pursuant to subdivision (1)(a) of this section, is subject to a test of balancing the interests of the parties as well as those of the public, measured by the standard of a reasonable man. 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). Link |
| Com. v. Chestnut | 61.878 | 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). Link |
| Edmondson v. Alig | 61.878 | 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). Link |
| Ky. New Era, Inc. v. City of Hopkinsville | 61.878 | Since the privacy interests in not being identified by personal information was almost always substantial and the public interest in disclosure rarely so, the city’s categorical redaction of such information was a reasonable application of KRS 61.878(1)(a). Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| Southeastern United Medigroup v. Hughes | 61.878 | This section provides the proper standard for determining whether records may be excluded from disclosure in administrative hearings, such as those provided for under the Health Care Acts of 1994: “if a document is confidential or proprietary, and that disclosure to competitors would give them substantially more than a trivial unfair advantage, the document should be protected from disclosure to those who are not parties to the proceeding.” Southeastern United Medigroup v. Hughes, 952 S.W.2d 195, 1997 Ky. LEXIS 90 (Ky. 1997), overruled in part, Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 2004 Ky. LEXIS 196 (Ky. 2004). Link |
Disclaimer:
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.
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.