Government Records Office Appeal Decision 2025-001
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF UTAH
YURI YUDIN, Petitioner, v.
MURRAY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
Appeal No. 2025-001
In this appeal, Petitioner, Yuri Yudin, seeks access to records held by Respondent, Murray City School District (“District”).
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2024, Mr. Yudin was working as a substitute teacher at Parkside Elementary School, which is operated by the District, when an incident occurred in which a teacher reported that Mr. Yudin had touched her on the back and yelled at her. The District conducted an investigation, which included a review of hallway surveillance video footage. The investigation concluded that Mr. Yudin did not touch or act in a discriminatory manner against the teacher and Mr. Yudin was cleared to continue working for the District.
On December 3, 2024, Mr. Yudin submitted a records request under the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”) to the District, seeking a copy of the surveillance video of the incident. In his request, Mr. Yudin indicated that he was the subject of the record and requested a fee waiver.
In an email dated December 5, 2024, the District denied Mr. Yudin’s records request “out of concern for employee safety.” On December 9, 2024, Mr. Yudin submitted an appeal to District Superintendent Jennifer Covington, challenging the denial of his request. On December 13, 2024, Superintendent Covington denied Mr. Yudin’s appeal stating that the District “believes that releasing this video could lead to potential harassment or safety concerns for our employee.”
Mr. Yudin then appealed to the State Records Committee. Pursuant to Utah Code § 63A-12-203(7) effective May 7, 2025, Mr. Yudin’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. The Director also viewed in camera the requested records, which consisted of approximately two minutes of relevant video surveillance footage. After carefully considering 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.
2. 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).
3. Notwithstanding any other provision in GRAMA, if a governmental entity receives a request for access to a record that contains both information that the requester is entitled to inspect and information that the requester is not entitled to inspect under GRAMA, and, if the information the requester is entitled to inspect is intelligible, the governmental entity generally shall allow access to information in the record that the requester is entitled to inspect and deny access to information in the record that is exempt from disclosure. Utah Code § 63G-2-308.
4. In its written submission and oral argument the District argued that it “sees no reason why Mr. Yudin should be granted access to the video footage,” that it “is unaware of Mr. Yudin’s intent and has a reasonable concern for the employee’s safety,” and that “[r]eleasing the footage would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy for others.” The District further asserted that “the video footage shows other students and staff . . . [and the District] has a legal and ethical obligation to protect the privacy of those individuals.” Thus, the District asserted that “the information is exempt from public disclosure under GRAMA.”
5. Contrary to the District’s assertions, Mr. Yudin has an obvious interest in accessing the video footage because he is the subject of the record and his legal rights are directly implicated by the information in the record. Mr. Yudin has clearly indicated, both in his initial request and during the hearing, that he is seeking the record for legal purposes. On the other hand, the District has offered no support for its assertion that Mr. Yudin is seeking the record for some improper purpose or that releasing the record to him might jeopardize anyone’s safety.
6. Regarding the District’s privacy argument, the Director is not persuaded that release of the record to Mr. Yudin would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d). Although the video does implicate privacy interests of students and other teachers, those must be balanced against Mr. Yudin’s interest in accessing the record. And, as discussed below, student privacy can be protected through appropriate redaction of the video.
7. Although not raised by the District as a ground for its denial, to the extent the requested video includes images of students it is subject to the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 34 C.F.R. Part 99 (“FERPA”).
8. Utah Code § 63G-2-107(3) provides that “disclosure of an education record as defined in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 34 C.F.R. Part 99, that is controlled or maintained by a governmental entity is governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 34 C.F.R. Part 99.”
9. Under FERPA, a governmental entity is prohibited from releasing a student’s “education records,” or PII contained within such records, without the student’s consent. FERPA defines “education records” as “records, files, documents, and other materials which (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A).
10. In Bryner v. Canyons Sch. Dist., 2015 UT App 131, 351 P.3d 852 (Utah App. 2015), the Utah Court of Appeals held that once information directly related to a student is redacted from a record, it ceases to be an “education record” as defined under FERPA and its disclosure is no longer governed by that statute. Disclosure of the redacted record can then be evaluated under GRAMA pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-107(1)(b), which provides that GRAMA applies to records to which access is governed or limited pursuant to federal statute “to the extent that [GRAMA] is not inconsistent with the [federal] statute.”
11. The present case is very similar to Bryner. In that case, a father submitted a GRAMA request to a school district seeking surveillance video of an incident at a middle school involving his child and other students. The school district denied the records request, asserting that the video was an education record under FERPA directly related to multiple students in addition to the requester’s child. The Utah Court of Appeals agreed with the school district that the video was an education record subject to FERPA but found that the video could be redacted by blurring other student’s images, allowing the father to “only inspect the material . . . related to his child.” Id., at ¶ 31; 351 P.3d at 860.
12. Based on in camera review of the requested surveillance videos, the Director finds that they are education records subject to FERPA because they include footage of numerous students at Parkside Elementary School. However, consistent with Bryner, the videos can be edited to redact any student images (either by cropping or blurring) while preserving the relevant footage of Mr. Yudin’s interaction with the other teacher. During the hearing, the District represented that it has the ability to perform such redaction and agreed to waive any fees for providing a redacted copy of the video to Mr. Yudin.
ORDER
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Yuri Yudin, is GRANTED and the District shall release to Mr. Yudin the requested video surveillance footage with appropriate redactions as discussed herein.
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 to produce a record and no appeal is filed, the government entity herein shall comply with the order of the Director and shall: (1) Produce the record; and (2) File a notice of compliance with the Government Records Office. 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 29th day of September 2025.
BY THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE
_______________________________________
LONNY J. PEHRSON, Director