GRO director designates Mark Allen a vexatious requester; limits Utah County records for six months

Lonnie Pearson, director of the Government Records Office, ruled that Utah County met the statutory standard to designate Mark Allen a vexatious requester and ordered that the county not fulfill records requests from Allen or anyone acting on his behalf for six months from the written decision.

The finding grew out of a petition filed by Utah County attorney Catherine Cole. Cole told the director the county had received an unusually high volume of requests from Allen, including approximately 435 submissions since August 2019 (217 submitted between January 2025 and January 2026), and that many recent requests were duplicative, vague or unduly burdensome. "We are asking the director to grant our petition to designate Mr. Allen as a vexatious requester and relieve Utah County from the responsibility of responding to Mr. Allen's requests for the statutory maximum period of 1 year," Cole said during opening remarks.

Allen disputed the county’s accounting and its characterization of his conduct. He said an exhibit he submitted shows 53 GRAMA submissions since May 2023 and that many of his requests sought records that the county has failed to produce or certify. Allen accused county personnel of "nonproduction" and "premature destruction" of records and asked the director for a preservation order so records could be audited by federal authorities; he also said he had suffered financial and personal harm, telling the director: "I've lost $700,000 ... I've ended up living in a tent."

Director Pearson framed his ruling around three primary findings. He concluded that Allen had abused the right of access under the GRAMA vexatious-requester provision in part because: (1) the volume of requests since 2023 was well outside the norm and had required substantial staff time; (2) many requests were duplicative and revisited the same matters repeatedly; and (3) the tone and content of communications to county staff included accusatory demands and requests for special handling not contemplated by GRAMA. Pearson also noted mitigating factors, including evidence that some of Allen’s requests addressed matters of public interest and that Allen had engaged in mediation and participated in the hearing.

Pearson declined Utah County’s request for the full one-year restriction but imposed a six-month prohibition on fulfilling requests from Allen or on his behalf, describing the period as a "cooling off" interval and warning that repeated similar conduct could lead to a one-year bar if a new petition were filed. He said a written decision would be issued within seven business days and reminded the parties that either may appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.

Cole told the director that the county had used GRAMA’s existing tools — extensions, fee assessments, duplicative-request designations — but that Allen’s submissions were often so complex and numerous that legal review and staff time were required to identify duplicative portions. She said the county’s internal accounting treats distinct document or search requests within a single filing as separate requests for workload purposes and noted that many of the recent filings related to personal matters rather than public issues.

Allen countered that his requests sought files tied to prosecutorial conduct and preservation of public resources, including records related to Bridal Veil Falls and federal VOCA funding. He said the county’s failure to produce certified records in prior proceedings supported his position that preservation and forensic review were needed, but Director Pearson ruled the preservation request outside the narrow scope of the vexatious-requester proceeding and instead focused the decision on whether Allen’s GRAMA conduct met the statutory standard.

The director closed the hearing and said the written order would explain the findings and remedies in detail. Either party may appeal the ruling to district court within 30 days of the written decision.