Government Records Office Appeal 2024-219
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF UTAH
JARED KUMMER, Petitioner, v.
SEVIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
Appeal No. 2024-219
In this appeal, Petitioner, Jared Kummer, seeks access to records allegedly held by Respondent, the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office’s (“Sheriff’s Office”).
FACTS
On October 5, 2024, Mr. Kummer submitted a request to the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Mr. Kummer requested records related to his complaint about alleged child abuse at the South Sevier Middle School and the ensuing investigation by the Sheriff’s Office. On October 18, 2024, the Records Officer for the Sheriff’s Office stated in an email that Mr. Kummer “has been provided with copies of all reports except for the specific emails requested in this request between the requestor and Detective Larsen.” The email also stated that those “emails have been gathered and will be provided when payment for the records has been made.”
Mr. Kummer appealed this decision to the Sevier County Sheriff in an email dated October 22, 2024. Mr. Kummer argued that he had not received all of the records he had requested and asked the Sheriff’s Office to “either provide these or please deny each item using GRAMA procedures so I know the reason for each denied item.”
After not receiving a response from the Sheriff’s Office, on December 5, 2024, Mr. Kummer filed an appeal with the Utah State Records Committee. Pursuant to Utah Code § 63A-12-203(7) effective May 7, 2025, Mr. Kummer’s appeal was transferred to the Government Records Office (“Office”). On July 22, 2025, the Director of the Office held a public hearing during which the parties presented evidence and arguments. After having carefully considered all evidence presented, the Director of the Office issues the following Decision and Order.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. GRAMA states that a governmental entity is not required to: (1) Create a record; or (2) Compile, format, manipulate, package, summarize, or tailor information. Utah Code § 63G-2-201(7)(a)(i) & (ii). 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 as one that is “reasonable in scope and intensity” and is “not unreasonably burdensome for the government entity.” Utah Code § 63G-2-103(24).
2. Although there is limited case law applying GRAMA’s reasonable search standard, Utah case law supports looking to cases interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) for guidance regarding similar provisions or standards under GRAMA. See, Deseret News Pub. Co. v. Salt Lake County, 2008 UT 26, ¶45 (analyzing GRAMA’s text against FOIA’s as they relate to records that could reasonably be expected to interfere with investigations). Under FOIA, the reasonableness of a governmental entity’s search is evaluated by looking at the entity’s process, not the result. Trentadue v. F.B.I., 572 F.3d 794, 797-98 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Weisberg v. Dept. of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983)).
3. The issue is not whether additional records may exist, but whether the entity’s search efforts were adequate. Weisberg, at 1351. If the sufficiency of the search is challenged, the governmental entity bears the initial burden of showing that its search was reasonable. See, Truitt v. Dept. of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir.1990). And “reasonableness” is dependent on the circumstances in the case. Weisberg, at 1351. If it is determined that the search performed was reasonable, under Utah Administrative Rules the burden then shifts to the requester to provide sufficient evidence showing that a record “was maintained by the governmental entity at one time, or that the governmental entity has concealed, or has not sufficiently or has improperly searched for the record.” Utah Admin. Code R 35-2(2).
4. Mr. Kummer asserts that the Sheriff’s Office’s failure to produce this complaint in its response shows that the Sheriff’s Office did not properly search for or is concealing records. Mr. Kummer also contends that there must be additional records related to interviews or conversations between the investigator and school administrators, students and/or parents, including his wife.
5. At the hearing, Sevier County Sheriff Nathan Curtis testified that thorough searches for records were conducted, including various follow up inquiries and searches based on the concerns raised by Mr. Kummer, and that all responsive records had been provided. Sheriff Curtis could not offer any explanation for the missing “written complaint” other than to say that it was not found after a thorough search. Sheriff Curtis did explain that many of Mr. Kummer’s contentions regarding other “missing” records seemed to be based on Mr. Kummer’s misconceptions regarding how investigations are conducted and what records are typically created, as well as Mr. Kummer’s belief that additional investigatory steps should have been taken that were not. Mr. Kummer did not present any evidence controverting Sheriff’s Curtis’ testimony.
6. After having carefully considered the evidence and arguments of the parties, the Director is persuaded by Sheriff Curtis’s testimony and finds that all records responsive to Mr. Kummer’s records request have been provided to him. The Sheriff’s Office presented sufficient evidence that the search process in this instance was reasonable based on the circumstances in this case, thereby shifting to Mr. Kummer the burden of presenting evidence showing that additional records likely exist that have not been provided. Mr. Kummer has not met this burden. Although the failure to locate the written complaint submitted by Mr. Kummer is concerning, it does not call into question the overall record keeping or search processes used by the Sheriff’s Office. Because the search conducted by the Sheriff’s Office was reasonable, the mere possibility that additional records might exist that have not been located is insufficient grounds on which to grant Mr. Kummer’s appeal.
ORDER
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Jared Kummer, is DENIED.
RIGHT TO APPEAL
A party to a proceeding before the Office may seek judicial review in District Court of a Director’s Order of the Office by filing a petition for review of the Order as provided in Utah Code § 63G-2-404. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(14). A petition for judicial review of a Director’s Order "shall be filed no later than 30 days" after the date of the Order pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1)(a) subject to the exceptions provided in Utah Code §63G-2-404(1)(b). The petition for judicial review must be a complaint which is governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and contain the required information listed in Subsection -404(2). Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1) & (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 a party’s rights on appeal, a party may wish to seek advice from an attorney.
RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-403(15)(c), if the Director of the Office orders the governmental entity to produce a record and no appeal is filed, the government entity herein 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 of the Office 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).
Dated this 1st day of August 2025.
BY THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE
_______________________________________
LONNY J. PEHRSON, Director