Government Records Office Appeal Decision 2024-180

BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

JEFFREY AND AMANDA OAKES, Petitioners, v.

JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent,

DECISION AND ORDER

Appeal No. 2024-180

In this appeal, Petitioners, Jeffrey and Amanda Oakes, seek access to records allegedly held by Respondent, the Jordan School District (“District”).

BACKGROUND

On August 26, 2024, Petitioners submitted a records request to the District under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). The request asked for three categories of records, including: (1) Any records pertaining to an incident on December 2, 2022, in which Ms. Oakes’s timesheet was rejected, including reports or records related to any investigation conducted by the District regarding the incident; (2) The full report and any supporting documents prepared by Kirsten Allen for the District regarding Ms. Oakes claims of harassment, retaliation, and mistreatment by District administrators and employees; and, (3) Any records and reports pertaining to any investigation concerning Ms. Oakes as a parent or an employee. The request noted that Ms. Oakes was the subject of the records.

The records officer for the District responded via email on September 11, 2024, providing only the one-page timesheet as responsive to Part 1, finding all records responsive to Part 2 to be protected under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(18), and stating that no records responsive to Part 3 existed. Petitioners submitted an appeal that same day to the Superintendent of the District, asserting that additional records responsive to Parts 1 and 3 existed that were not identified or provided, and challenging the protected classification of the report sought in Part 2 of the request. The Superintendent did not provide a timely response to the appeal.

On September 27, 2024, Petitioners appealed to the State Records Committee. Pursuant to Utah Code § 63A-12-203(7), effective May 7, 2025, Petitioners' appeal was transferred to the Government Records Office (“Office”). On August 21, 2025, the Director of the Office (“Director”) held a public hearing at which the parties presented evidence and arguments. During the hearing, the Director reviewed in camera the report identified as responsive to Part 2 of the request, which the District classified as protected. Having carefully considered the parties’ presentations, the Director issues the following Decision and Order.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

1. GRAMA specifies that a “record is public unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(2). Records that are designated as “private,” “protected,” or “controlled,” are not public. See Utah Code §§ 63G-2-201(3)(a), -302, -303, -304 and -305. Records to which access is restricted pursuant to a court rule, another state statute, federal statute, or federal regulation are also considered non-public records under GRAMA pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-201(3)(b).

2. Utah Code § 63G-2-202(6)(b) requires a person making a records request to identify the requested records with “reasonable specificity.” The District argued that Petitioners’ records request could not be completed because it is not reasonably specific. However, a review of Petitioners’ request shows that it describes the requested records with sufficient specificity to allow the District to identify what is being sought. Accordingly, the District shall process Petitioners’ records request as presented.

3. Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-305(17) & (18), records that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, or records prepared for or by an attorney in anticipation of litigation, or a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, are protected non-public records if properly classified by a governmental entity.

4. An in camera review of the April 10, 2023, Memorandum prepared by Kirsten Allen for the District shows that it is not properly classified as a protected record under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(17) or (18). Although drafted by an attorney, the Memorandum does not include legal advice, theories, or strategies regarding pending or anticipated litigation. Instead, it is a report of an “independent investigation” conducted into allegations raised by Ms. Oakes, and was produced in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to routine procedures or public requirements unrelated to litigation. See Schroeder v. Utah Attorney General's Office, 358 P.3d 1075, 1085 (2015). And, even assuming the Memorandum could be properly classified as protected under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(17) or (18), Petitioners have established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the public interest favoring access is equal to or greater than the interest favoring restriction of access. Accordingly, the Memorandum should be released to Ms. Oakes, as the subject of the record, with redaction of information that may be properly classified as private regarding third parties.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioners, Jeffrey and Amanda Oakes, is GRANTED.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

A party to this proceeding may seek review of the Director’s order or decision by filing a petition for judicial review in District Court as provided in Utah Code § 63G-2-404. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(14). A petition for judicial review “shall be filed no later than 30 days” after the date of the order or decision pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1)(a), except as provided in Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1)(b). The petition is a complaint governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and shall contain the required information listed in Subsection -404(2). Utah Code § 63G-2-404(2). The court shall make its decision de novo but shall allow introduction of evidence presented to the Director, determine all questions of fact and law without a jury, and decide the issue at the earliest practical opportunity. Utah Code § 63G-2-404(6). In order to protect its rights on appeal, a party may wish to seek advice from an attorney.

PENALTY NOTICE

Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(c), if the Director orders the governmental entity herein to produce a record and no appeal is filed, the governmental entity shall comply with the Order and shall: (1) produce the record; and (2) file a notice of compliance with the Director. If the governmental entity ordered to produce a record fails to file a notice of compliance or a notice of intent to appeal, the Director may do either or both of the following: (1) impose a civil penalty of up to $500 for each day of continuing noncompliance; or (2) send written notice of the entity’s noncompliance to the Governor. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(d)(i)(B). In imposing a civil penalty, the Director shall consider the gravity and circumstances of the violation, including whether the failure to comply was due to neglect or was willful or intentional. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(d)(ii).

Entered this 2nd day of September 2025.

BY THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE

_______________________________________
LONNY J. PEHRSON, Director