Government Records Office Appeal Decision 2025-111

BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

LOGAN CITY, Petitioner, v.

BRADY EAMES, Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

Appeal No. 2025-111

On September 2, 2025, Petitioner, Logan City, filed with the Government Records Office (“Office”) a “Petition to Designate Brady Eames a Vexatious Requester Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-209” (“Petition”). Respondent, Brady Eames, was emailed a copy of the Petition by Logan City. A public hearing was held by the Director of the Office (“Director”) on October 9, 2025, during which Logan City presented arguments supporting its Petition for a formal order declaring Mr. Eames a vexatious requester and relieving Logan City of any obligation to respond to Mr. Eames’ records requests for a period of up to twelve months. Mr. Eames did not appear electronically or in person at the hearing. After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the Director issues the following Decision and Order.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

I. Governing Law

1. The Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”) specifies that a governmental entity may file a petition with the director to request relief from a person that the governmental entity claims is a vexatious requester. Utah Code § 63G-2-209(2)(a). The petition shall contain: (1) A description of the conduct that the governmental entity claims demonstrates that the respondent is a vexatious requester; (2) A statement of the relief the governmental entity seeks; and (3) A sworn declaration or an unsworn declaration. Utah Code § 63G-2-209(2)(b)(ii-iv).

2. If the Director holds a hearing regarding a vexatious requester petition, the director shall allow both the governmental entity and the respondent to testify, present evidence, and comment on the issues. Utah Code § 63G-2-209(7)(a). If a respondent fails to submit a written statement or fails to appear at the hearing, the director may still hold a hearing. Utah Code § 63G-2-209(6).

3. In determining whether a governmental entity has demonstrated that the respondent is a vexatious requester, the director shall consider as applicable: (1) The number of requests the respondent has submitted to the governmental entity, including the number of pending record requests; (2) The scope, nature, content, language, and subject matter of record requests the respondent has submitted to the governmental entity; (3) The nature, content, language, and subject matter of any communications to the governmental entity related to a record request to the respondent; (4) Any pattern of conduct that the director determines to constitute an abuse of the right of access to information under GRAMA or substantial interference with the operations of the governmental entity; and (5) Any other factor the director considers relevant. Utah Code § 63G-2-209(9).

4. Upon granting the petition in whole or in part, the director may order that the governmental entity is not required to fulfill requests from the respondent or a person that submits a request on the respondent’s behalf for a period of time that may not exceed one year. Utah Code § 63G-2-209(8)(b).

5. If the petition is granted, the director’s order shall contain: (1) A statement of the reasons for the director’s decision; (2) A specific description of the conduct the director determines demonstrates that the respondent is a vexatious requester, including any conduct the director finds to constitute an abuse of the right to access of information under GRAMA or a substantial interference with the operations of the governmental entity; (3) A statement that the respondent or governmental entity may seek judicial review of the director’s decision in district court pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-404; and (4) A brief summary of the judicial review process, the time limits for seeking judicial review, and a notice that, in order to protect applicable rights in connection with the judicial review, the person seeking judicial review of the director’s decision may wish to seek advice from an attorney. Utah Code § 63G-2-209(8)(c).

II. Findings of Fact and Vexatious Conduct

6. Logan City noted that Mr. Eames was previously found by the State Records Committee (“Committee”) to be a vexatious requester with regard to Logan City, and that the Committee granted Logan City a twelve-month reprieve from responding to Mr. Eames requests effective April 29, 2024. See, Logan City v. Eames, State Records Committee Case No. 24-22 (Apr. 29, 2024).

7. Logan City also noted that once the twelve-month period lapsed in April of 2025, “Mr. Eames immediately began to inundate the City with records requests using the very same tactics that were found to be vexatious.”

8. Logan City presented an affidavit from the Logan City Recorder, Teresa Harris, who estimated that Mr. Eames had made over five hundred record requests to Logan City since 2016. Since the expiration of the prior order on April 29, 2025, Mr. Eames has made over forty-eight GRAMA requests to Logan City.

9. Ms. Harris stated that Mr. Eames’ requests often consist of multiple subparts, which Logan City treats as separate requests. She further noted that Mr. Eames often asks that his requests be expedited or be responded to “in 15 minutes or less.” Ms. Harris stated that she spends “a disproportionate amount of time dealing with Mr. Eames GRAMA requests” with “[h]ours and sometimes entire shifts . . . dedicated to responding to Mr. Eames requests, appeals, or other emails.” She further stated that Mr. Eames has sometimes failed to pick up the requested records in a timely manner. For instance, on one occasion records that were ready for collection on August 11, 2020, were not picked up by Mr. Eames until July 17, 2024.

10. Logan City also presented an affidavit by the Logan City Finance Director, Richard Anderson. He stated that the Logan City Finance Department has processed the majority of Mr. Eames’ records requests, but he spends “a disproportionate amount of time dealing with Mr. Eames’ GRAMA requests” to the point that the requests “are affecting my ability to do my job efficiently by requiring that I dedicate significant man-hours to processing his requests.”

11. Assistant Logan City Attorney, Mohamed Abdullahi, also submitted an affidavit stating that since the Committee’s April 2024 order he has received “approximately 63 emails from Mr. Eames.” These communications included one email with the subject line “Mr. Abdullahi’s misleading statement.” Another email accused Mr. Abdullahi of unprofessional conduct and misleading the Committee, and was addressed to the Committee, Logan City’s mayor, the Logan City Attorney and other city attorneys, and members of the media. Mr. Abdullahi stated that Mr. Eames’ requests “are offensive and amount to harassment.” During the hearing, when asked if Mr. Eames’ behavior had improved at all since the Committee’s vexatious order, Mr. Abdullahi explained that “it has gotten worse.”

III. Director’s Conclusion

12. After considering the evidence and arguments submitted by Logan City, the totality of the circumstances, and the factors listed in Utah Code § 63G-2-209(9), the Director finds that Logan City has met its burden of showing Mr. Eames to be a vexatious requester. Specifically, the Director finds the following conduct by Respondent, Brady Eames, to be vexatious:

a. Volume and Scope of Requests: The sheer number of requests submitted by Mr. Eames since the expiration of the Committee’s previous vexatious order, combined with the fact that his requests often consist of multiple subparts and broad descriptions, necessitate that Logan City staff spend a disproportionate amount of time processing them.

b. Abuse of Access and Substantial Interference: Mr. Eames’ conduct constitutes an abuse of the right to access records under GRAMA and has substantially interfered with Logan City’s municipal functions. The testimony of the Logan City Recorder and the Finance Director confirmed that significant staff hours, sometimes “entire shifts,” are dedicated to responding to Mr. Eames requests, drawing resources away from core municipal duties.

c. Nature of Communications: The nature of Mr. Eames’ communications, including frequent emails that are accusatory, offensive, and target city employees (such as Mr. Abdullahi and Ms. Harris), amounts to harassment.

d. Prior Vexatious Finding: Mr. Eames was previously found vexatious and sanctioned for his behavior, however, immediately upon the expiration of the prior order, Mr. Eames resumed the same vexatious conduct, demonstrating a deliberate pattern of conduct intended to burden Logan City.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Logan City’s “Petition to Designate Brady Eames a Vexatious Requester Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-2-209” is GRANTED and Logan City is not required to fulfill requests from Mr. Eames, or a person who submits a request on Mr. Eames’ behalf, for a period of one year from the date of this order.

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 21st day of October 2025.

BY THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE

_______________________________________
LONNY J. PEHRSON, Director