Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co.
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co. was a case before the Kentucky Supreme Court in 1997 concerning personal privacy and open records lawsuits.
Important precedents
This case established a number of precedents:
1.) That personal privacy exemptions should be validated or overruled by comparing the public interest in the release with the privacy interest brought about by the potential harm to the reputation of the individuals.
2.) That public interest and the Kentucky Open Records Act could override contractual or settlement agreements of confidentiality, given that the above mentioned test was met in favor of release.
Background
- The Lexington Herald-Leader Company submitted a public records request for all documents relating to settlements of lawsuits against the police department.
- The police department agreed to release information relating to the amount of money paid out but redacted all information concerning the reasons for the payout and the names of the individuals who received the payments claiming that they were exempt under the Kentucky Open Records Act statute 61.878(1) (a), which exempts information the release of which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Two of the settlements specifically contained a confidentiality agreement as a part of the settlement.
- The newspaper filed suit in circuit court, seeking to compel the release of the un-redacted final settlement agreements. The Fayette Circuit Court ruled in favor of the newspapers, ordering the release of the documents.
Ruling of the court
The trial court ruled in favor of the newspapers, determining that the privacy exemption did not apply to the settlements. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, determining that not only did the privacy exemption not apply, but the Kentucky exemption for documents produced in closed meetings found in statute 61.878(1) (1) was also not applicable.
The Supreme Court ---- the decision of the Court of Appeals, declaring....
The Supreme Court began by citing Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co. v. McDonald, which established that the payment of public funds established a high degree of public interest, so that only the most obviously applicable statutory exception can exempt the records. The court went on to establish that trial history had dictated that personal privacy conflicts should be determined by comparing the public interest in the release with the potential harm to the reputation of the individuals. The court determined that under the given circumstances, the public interest in determining the cause of the settlements outweighed any privacy interests on the part of persons receiving the payments. The court also felt that the confidentiality agreements present in two of the cases could be overridden by public interest, citing out of state cases, namely Anchorage School District v. Anchorage Daily News, which established in Alaska that confidentiality agreements could be invalidated in favor of public disclosure. Based on all these facts, the Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts and ordered the documents released.
Associated cases
- Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co. v. McDonald
- Anchorage School District v. Anchorage Daily News
