Government Records Office Appeal Decision 2024-227
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF UTAH
SYDNEE CHAPMAN GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v.
SUMMIT COUNTY, Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
Appeal No. 2024-227
In this appeal, Petitioner, Sydnee Chapman Gonzalez, seeks access to records allegedly held by Respondent, Summit County.
BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2024, Ms. Gonzalez, a reporter with the Utah Investigative Journalism Project, submitted a records request under the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”) to Summit County (“County”). Ms. Gonzalez requested records detailing the receipt and expenditure of opioid settlement funds and any proposals/plans on how the settlement funds would be used. In an email dated November 19, 2024, the County informed Ms. Gonzalez that any responsive records could be found on the Utah Health Department’s website and provided a link to the website. The County also pointed out that it was not required to create records in response to Ms. Gonzalez’s request.
Ms. Gonzalez submitted an appeal to the County’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) on November 25, 2024. In response to the appeal, the County conducted additional searches and provided a copy of a 2023 Fiscal Year Usage Report showing the total amount of funds received as $73,058.22 but stated that no other responsive documents existed. The CAO decision did not inform Ms. Gonzalez of her right to further appeal the decision, as required under Utah Code § 63G-2-401(b)(ii), presumably based on the County’s belief that there had been no “access denial” as defined under GRAMA.
Ms. Gonzales had some additional communications with the County regarding her request, including a telephone conversation with County Attorney, Ms. Viti, who told Ms. Gonzalez to contact the County’s CFO, Matt Leavitt, for more information. Mr. Leavitt informed Ms. Gonzalez that the County had received a total of $567,652 in opioid settlement funds as of December 17, 2024, but stated there were no additional records related to the funds.
Ms. Gonzalez filed an appeal with the State Records Committee on December 20, 2024. Pursuant to Utah Code § 63A-12-203(7) effective May 7, 2025, Ms. Gonzalez’s appeal was transferred to the Government Records Office (“Office”). On September 18, 2025, the Director of the Office (“Director”) held a public hearing at which the parties presented evidence and arguments. After having carefully considered the parties’ presentations, the Director issues the following Decision and Order.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. GRAMA specifies that in response to a records request, a governmental entity is not required to: (1) Create a record; or (2) Fill a person’s records request if the record requested is publicly accessible online. Utah Code §§ 63G-2-201(7)(a)(i) & -201(7)(v)(A)(I).
2. A governmental entity is required to conduct a reasonable search for a requested record. Utah Code § 63G-2-201(7)(b). A “reasonable search” is defined by GRAMA as a search that is: (1) Reasonable in scope and intensity; and (2) Not unreasonably burdensome for the government entity. Utah Code § 63G-2-103(24).
3. Under Utah Code § 63G-2-401(1) a requester can appeal an access denial to the governmental entity’s chief administrative officer (CAO). “Access denial” is defined under GRAMA as “a governmental entity’s denial, under Subsection 63G-2-204(9) or Section 63G-2-205, in whole or in part, of a record request.” Utah Code § 63G-2-400.5(1). Under Utah Code § 63G-2-402(1)(a)(i) a requester can appeal a CAO’s decision “to affirm the denial of a record request” to the director of the Government Records Office.
4. The County argues that the Director does not have jurisdiction to hear Ms. Gonzalez’s appeal because there was no “access denial” here, as defined under GRAMA. The Director finds no merit to this argument. Under GRAMA, “access denial” is defined broadly to include any denial “in whole or in part, of a record request.” Under Utah Code § 63G-2-204(9) a governmental entity’s failure “to provide the requested records or issue a denial within the specified time period . . . is considered the equivalent of a determination denying access to [a] record.” Given this broad definition, a governmental entity’s determination that no responsive records exist, or that no additional records exist that have not already been identified, amounts to a denial in part of a record request. In practical terms, if the requester has reason to believe that records do in fact exist, a governmental entity’s denying the existence of a record is little different from its denying access to records acknowledged to exist. Under such circumstances, the requester should be afforded an opportunity to present evidence showing that the governmental entity has failed to conduct a proper search or is actively concealing records. Thus, the Director declines to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
5. In the present case, the County argues that it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and that Ms. Gonzalez has not presented compelling evidence that additional records exist. The County states that it has conducted multiple searches for records at this point, including an additional search by Ms. Viti in preparation for the hearing in this matter, which turned up one additional record. The County further asserts that it went above and beyond the requirements of GRAMA by providing access to its Attorney and CFO to answer questions about the records.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Gonzalez asserts that the County’s production is inconsistent with what she received from other counties to whom she submitted similar requests, and that the County’s late production of records suggests that records are being withheld or concealed. Ms. Gonzalez also contends that the inconsistencies in the figures she received and the County’s admission that it received additional funds since the 2023 Fiscal Year Usage Report suggest that additional records must exist.
7. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence presented by the parties, the Director finds that Ms. Gonzalez has not met her burden of showing that the County failed to conduct a reasonable search or that additional records likely exist that have not been identified. The evidence shows that the County has conducted multiple searches for records at this point and the mere fact that other counties generated more records does not necessarily imply that additional records exist here. Moreover, the County was not required to create records in response to Ms. Gonzalez’s request.
ORDER
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Sydnee Chapman Gonzalez, is DENIED.
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.
Entered this 29th day of September 2025.
BY THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE
_______________________________________
LONNY J. PEHRSON, Director