Government Records Office Appeal Decision 2025-058

BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

COURTNEY JOHNS, Petitioner, v.

UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

Appeal Nos. 2025-058

By this appeal, Petitioner Courtney Johns, an investigative reporter/anchor with KSL-TV, seeks access to records held by Respondent, the Utah Transit Authority (“UTA”).

BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2025, Ms. Johns submitted a request for records under the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”) to UTA. Ms. Johns requested access to all video footage, audio recordings and images in UTA’s possession related to an automobile accident that occurred on March 7, 2025. The accident involved a UTA paratransit van on State Route 201 in Salt Lake City, Utah near Interstate 215, and involved multiple vehicles with multiple injuries. As a result of the accident, one of the passengers was ejected from the UTA paratransit van and suffered serious injuries. Ms. Johns stated that the records would be “used to inform the public about the circumstances surrounding the crash, the response by emergency services, and the safety measures taken by UTA.”

On March 24, 2025, Alex Paugh, the Records Officer and Specialist for UTA, denied Ms. Johns’ request, stating that the requested records were non-public under GRAMA. Specifically, Ms. Paugh stated that the records were private under Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d) because their release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; controlled under Utah Code §63G-2-304 because release would be detrimental to a subject of the record’s mental health; and/or, protected under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(18) because they were prepared by UTA for, or in anticipation of, litigation.

In an email dated April 4, 2025, Ms. Johns appealed the initial denial to Jay M. Fox, Executive Director of UTA. Ms. Johns argued that there was a public interest in the requested records, and that even if they had been properly classified as non-public records, the “public has a right to know about the safety of public transportation services and the measures taken to prevent such incidents in the future.” In a letter dated April 14, 2025, Executive Director Fox denied Ms. Johns’ appeal, finding that the classifications of protected, controlled, and private were “appropriately applied” to the requested records. Mr. Fox also stated that “[d]ue to the content of these records, and anticipation of litigation, release of the records as a public safety interest do not outweigh the privacy concerns of the paratransit customers involved in this accident, or UTA’s legal ability to defend itself.”

On May 13, 2025, Ms. Johns filed the present appeal with the Government Records Office (“Office”). On August 27, 2025, Ms. Johns requested an expedited hearing pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-204(3)(b), which was granted by the Office. Immediately prior to the hearing, UTA reclassified as public all of the audio files and 39 images but retained the classification of the remaining 16 images and all video footage as private records under Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d). During the hearing, UTA stated that it had abandoned its protected and controlled classifications for the remaining records in dispute, except as to security camera identification numbers which the parties agreed should remain protected.

On October 9, 2025, the Director of the Office (“Director”) held a public hearing at which the parties were allowed to present evidence and arguments. The Director reviewed in camera the disputed images and video footage prior to the hearing. During the hearing, UTA allowed Ms. Johns and her legal counsel to conduct an “eyes only” review of the disputed records, by which Ms. Johns was able to narrow her request to only one picture and the end portions of six video recordings showing the accident and immediate aftermath. UTA stated that it was willing to release the picture after blurring the faces of any individuals, to which Ms. Johns consented. UTA also agreed to release the six video segments after blurring the faces of the van driver and passengers, modulating any voices heard in the videos so they would not be identifiable, and clipping the videos shortly after the moment of impact. Ms. Johns objected to these redactions and the matter was presented to the Director. 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. 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. Records containing data on individuals the disclosure of which would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” are private, non-public records if properly classified by a governmental entity. Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d).

3. Ms. Johns asserts that riders do not have any expectation of privacy while using public transportation and, therefore, the videos should be released unedited. However, UTA persuasively argued that although passengers do not have a general expectation of privacy, they also do not anticipate that any video footage of them maintained by UTA for security purposes will be automatically released to the public regardless of its contents. Particularly when the video depicts a traumatic experience such as the accident that occurred here.

4. UTA argued that the following redactions of the six disputed video segments was necessary to protect the privacy of those involved: a) blurring the faces of all individuals, including the bus driver; b) modulating all voices to prevent recognition of any particular individual’s voice; and c) clipping the video at the point of the initial impact in order to avoid depicting trauma to the driver or riders during the accident.

5. After considering the arguments of the parties and reviewing the video in camera, the Director finds that release of the disputed video segments unedited would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of the affected paratransit riders’ personal privacy under Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(d). Moreover, the public interests favoring release of the unedited videos does not equal or outweigh the interests favoring restriction of access.

6. However, the Director further finds that, pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-308, the requested video segments can be redacted to release necessary information to the public while still adequately protecting passenger privacy. Accordingly, the Director finds that the videos should be released with the faces of the passengers redacted throughout. Redaction of the paratransit van driver’s face is not required, given the reduced expectation of privacy for public employees. Nor is modulation or redaction of any voices in the videos necessary, given the very limited speaking in the video and the unlikelihood of identifying a passenger from their voice.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the appeal of Petitioner, Courtney Johns, is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, and UTA shall release the requested video segments with the redactions described above.

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 21st day of October 2025.

BY THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE

_______________________________________
LONNY J. PEHRSON, Director