State Records Committee Appeal Decision 24-19

BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH

EMMANUEL CARRANZA, Petitioner, v.

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent,    

DECISION AND ORDER

Case No. 24-19

By this appeal, Emmanuel Carranza (“Petitioner”), requests records allegedly held by Utah Department of Corrections (“Respondent”) (“UDC”). 

FACTS

On June 3, 2023, Petitioner submitted a request to the Respondent for certain records pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Specifically, Petitioner requested, “The documentation/information and/or rational information that exists to demonstrate the greater degree of supervision required” from approximately April 19, 2023. In his request, he further clarified that he was seeking “all information concerning or considered in the implementation of the override of April 2022. Especially the records in the reassessment as to the rational[sic] and documented information for the override signed by the deputy warden.” The Respondent located a “Severe Management Override: Carranza, Emmanuel #177267 dated April 21, 2022. On June 23, 2023, The Respondent denied the initial request since it was a classification assessment and the “majority of assessments regarding inmates are GRAMA certified as private and are not given out.” 

Petitioner appealed this denial to Respondent’s Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”).  In his appeal, Petitioner cited various policies and requested that the Respondent grant him access to the “override assessment.” The Respondent’s CAO upheld the initial denial of the record and clarified that the record should have been classified as protected under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(13).

    Petitioner then appealed to the State Records Committee (“Committee”), challenging the CAO’s decision. During the pendency of his appeal, the Respondent provided multiple “Severe Management Override” reports to Petitioner. The Warden of the Utah State Correctional Facility and the Respondent’s Director of Prison Operations then met with Petitioner to try to resolve his request. However, Petitioner remained unsatisfied by the documents they provided and moved forward with his appeal. On February 15, 2024, the Committee held a hearing during which the parties were allowed to participate.  At the hearing, the Committee considered the written materials, oral testimony, and oral arguments of the parties.  After having carefully considered all evidence presented to the Committee, the Committee issues the following Decision and Order. 

ISSUES FOR REVIEW

    The Committee is asked to determine whether Petitioner’s records request was properly processed and filled.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION

    GRAMA provides that “a person has the right to inspect a public record free of charge, and the right to take a copy of a public record during normal working hours, . . .” Utah Code § 63G-2-201(1)(a). However, the law does give aid to the government when responding to records requests by mandating disclosure only if the requester “identifies the record with reasonable specificity” in the request. Utah Code § 63G-2-201(6)(b). Therefore, if a requester doesn’t provide a reasonably specific description of the record he seeks, the government is not required to fill the request. 

    In this case, the Respondent has shown the lengths it went to in trying to satisfy its duty to respond to the request. Taking the request at its face, the Respondent searched for and eventually retrieved multiple “Severe Management Override” reports concerning Petitioner. The Respondent’s Director of Operations and the Warden even personally visited Petitioner to address and try to resolve his request. However, the Respondent’s efforts and the records it produced didn’t satisfy Petitioner. But in the hearing, through the testimonies of the parties, we found that Petitioner was actually seeking a Law Enforcement Bureau Investigation Report (“LEB Report”). 

    It’s a somewhat common occurrence that an appeal comes before this Committee where the requester, not knowing how the governmental entity labels or identifies its records, submits a GRAMA request and doesn’t use the correct term in describing the records being requested. The government, doing its best to meet the request with precision, looks for the exact records being listed in the request. Inevitably, the dissatisfied requester brings the issue to us where, upon our examination of the parties, it comes out that it’s a matter of how the government internally names the record. This problem has no easy solution. Even when the Respondent’s Director and the Warden met with Petitioner there was still no epiphany that Petitioner was really asking for the LEB Report. As a result, we fault neither party. Petitioner didn’t know the exact name or label of the LEB Report, and the Respondent made reasonable efforts to ascertain what he was seeking. 

    Despite this, we must apply the law to the facts. As GRAMA requires that Petitioner identify the records he seeks with reasonable specificity, it’s clear that, by no fault of his own, he didn’t. The Respondent, making reasonable efforts to adequately fill the request, couldn’t ascertain exactly what Petitioner was seeking. Therefore, we must deny the appeal for the lack of specificity. We note, however, that, from the hearing, the parties now understand that Petitioner is seeking the LEB Report relevant to the override he referenced in his initial request. We encourage Petitioner to submit a new request identifying this specific record, and we encourage the Respondent to respond with the same good faith effort it did with the initial request. 

ORDER

THEREFORE, in accordance with this Decision, Petitioner’s appeal is hereby DENIED.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

A party to a proceeding before the Committee may seek judicial review in District Court of a Committee's Order by filing a petition for review of the Committee Order as provided in Utah Code § 63G-2-404. Utah Code § 63G-2-403(14). A petition for judicial review of a Committee Order "shall be filed no later than 30 days" after the date of the Committee Order. Utah Code § 63G-2-404(1)(a). The petition for judicial review must be a complaint which is governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and include the Committee as a necessary party 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 Committee, 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 parties’ 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 Committee orders the governmental entity to produce a record and no appeal is filed, the government entity herein shall comply with the order of the Committee and shall: (1) Produce the record; and (2) File a notice of compliance with the Committee. If the governmental entity ordered to produce a record fails to file a notice of compliance or a notice of intent to appeal, the Committee 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 Committee 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 26 day of February 2024

BY THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE

Kenneth Williams
Chair, State Records Committee