Government Records Office Appeal Decision 2025-005

BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

AEDEN JAECE, Petitioner, v.

CITY OF OREM, Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

Appeal No. 2025-005

By this appeal, Petitioner, Aeden Jaece, seeks access to records allegedly held by Respondent, the City of Orem (“Orem”).

BACKGROUND

On August 26, 2024, Mr. Jaece submitted a Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) request to the Orem City Recorder, Teresa McKitrick, seeking eight categories of records regarding a specified Orem City Police Officer. Orem processed this request, providing some records and denying access to others. Mr. Jaece appealed Orem’s handling of this request to Orem’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and received an appeal denial on September 18, 2024. Despite being informed of his appeal rights, Mr. Jaece did not file a timely appeal from this CAO denial with either the State Records Committee or the District Court.

In a letter dated December 10, 2024, Mr. Jaece submitted an updated GRAMA request to Orem City seeking the same eight categories of records requested previously as well as a ninth category for “Incident Reports and Correspondence.” On December 23, 2024, Orem denied Categories 1 through 8 of the updated request, finding that they unreasonably duplicated his previous request submitted on August 26, 2024. Orem’s CAO, Brenn Bybee, affirmed this denial on January 7, 2025.

Regarding Category 9 of the updated request, Orem did not initially deny access but sought clarification, which ultimately led to a narrowed request and search. On February 6, 2025, Orem released some records for Category 9 but denied access to 26 emails (two redacted, 24 withheld). The CAO affirmed this denial in part on March 6, 2025, releasing five additional records and upholding the withholding of 21 emails classified as protected due to attorney-client privilege and attorney work product.

Mr. Jaece submitted the present appeal to the State Records Committee on January 7, 2025. Pursuant to Utah Code § 63A-12-203(7), effective May 7, 2025, the appeal was transferred to the Government Records Office (“Office”). On October 2, 2025, the Director of the Office (“Director”) held a public hearing at which the parties presented evidence and arguments and the Director reviewed the disputed records in camera. After carefully considering the facts, evidence and the parties’ presentations, the Director issues the following Decision and Order.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

1. GRAMA specifies that a governmental entity is not required to fulfill a person’s records request if it unreasonably duplicates prior records requests from that person. Utah Code § 63G-2-201(7)(a)(iv).

2. A comparison of Mr. Jaece’s August 26, 2024, records request with the current records request shows that Categories 1-8 of the current request are substantially identical to those submitted to Orem previously. Because Orem already processed those items and provided responses, records and denials, Orem’s denial of Categories 1-8 of the present request as unreasonably duplicative was appropriate.

3. Regarding Category 9 of Mr. Jaece’s present request, seeking reports, notes, and communications authored by or involving the specified Orem police officer, the Director finds that it does not duplicate a prior records request from Mr. Jaece and the issues presented regarding those records are properly at issue here.

4. Orem asserted that after Mr. Jaece submitted the present appeal, it provided him over 100 redacted email records responsive to this item while withholding only 21 emails. Orem argued that the withheld emails were properly classified as protected non-public records pursuant to GRAMA’s attorney-client and attorney work product provisions found in Utah Code §§ 63G-2-305(17) & -305(18). Orem also argued that it appropriately redacted personal email addresses and personal phone numbers from the records provided, pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d).

5. After reviewing the disputed records in camera and considering the parties’ arguments, the Director finds that the records withheld responsive to Category 9 were properly classified by Orem as protected non-public records and that the redactions to the produced records were appropriate. Even after applying the balancing test found in Utah Code § 63G-2-403(11)(b), the Director finds that the interests favoring restriction of access are greater than the public’s interests in accessing the withheld records and information.

6. Regarding Mr. Jaece’s request for a fee waiver, the Director finds that when considering the substantial amount of work done by Orem, and the factors listed in Utah Code § 63G-2-203(4)(a-c), Orem’s denial of Mr. Jaece’s request for a fee waiver was not unreasonable.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Aeden Jaece, 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 14th day of October 2025.

BY THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE

_______________________________________
LONNY J. PEHRSON, Director