Utah AG's office explains who can get public records and when requests are limited

Richard Pyatt opened the Utah Attorney General's "Legally Speaking" program and interviewed Lonnie Pearson, the office's GRAMA coordinator, about public access to records under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA).

Pearson said GRAMA starts with a presumption of openness: "GRAMA has a fundamental presumption that all records are public," and then creates specific exceptions. He described three primary nonpublic classifications used by the office: private records accessible only to the record subject, controlled records where release to the subject could cause harm, and protected records where release could undermine other public interests. "Currently there are about 88 categories of protected records under our GRAMA statute," Pearson said, and cited common examples such as records related to ongoing enforcement or investigations and attorney work product or attorney-client privileged materials.

Pearson outlined how the office handles requests: identify custodians across the office's divisions, gather responsive records from multiple recordkeeping systems, review and classify material, redact private information where required, and compile and deliver the records. He noted the work can be time consuming: the office has "20 divisions, hundreds of attorneys," and multiple record systems make retrieval and review complex.

The interview addressed who files GRAMA requests. Pearson said media requests are often expedited and can be prioritized; he also said the office is seeing more litigants use GRAMA in pending litigation, which increases workload because the office must both litigate and respond to record requests. He noted that some other jurisdictions limit use of sunshine laws for litigation-driven requests but added, "our statute does not have that provision," and the office has been "looking at" the issue.

Pearson stressed requesters must identify the records sought with reasonable specificity, not simply ask for information or broad categories of cases. He warned that requests framed as attempts to compile all cases of a type over decades are often too broad and the office will work with requesters to narrow them. He also reminded listeners that other statutes or orders may control access to particular records and "would trump GRAMA," citing examples such as DCFS-related records and federal laws including HIPAA and FERPA.

For people filing requests, Pearson recommended using online resources to learn how to submit a GRAMA request, directing requests to the specific agency that holds the records (there is no central clearinghouse), and consulting resources from the Division of Archives and the Office of the Government Records Ombudsman. He added that government entities can charge a reasonable fee for broad requests and that narrowing a request can reduce cost and speed response.

The program closed with both speakers emphasizing the office's aim to provide transparency "to the best of our ability" while protecting privacy and other legal interests. "That is our goal, to provide the public with access to the records that we can, while also protecting those important public interests," Pearson said.

The interview and practical guidance are intended to help reporters, private citizens and organizations understand how to make effective GRAMA requests and what limitations or statutory overrides they should expect.