551 P.3d 411
Utah Ct. App.2024Background
- Big Game Forever contracted with the Utah Department of Natural Resources to lobby for the delisting of the Canadian Gray Wolf, receiving over $5 million in public funds.
- As part of the contract, Big Game had to submit detailed expenditure reports, including the identities and hours worked of its subcontractors.
- Big Game claimed business confidentiality over these reports, arguing that public disclosure would expose subcontractors to harassment and harm its competitive interests.
- Eric Peterson, acting on behalf of a journalism project, requested the unredacted expenditure reports under Utah’s public records law (GRAMA).
- The Department released the reports but redacted subcontractor names, prompting Peterson to successfully appeal to the State Records Committee, which ordered disclosure.
- The district court also ruled for Peterson, emphasizing that public interest outweighed Big Game’s confidentiality claims; Big Game appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subcontractor names are trade secrets | Peterson: Names should be public to ensure transparency of public spending | Big Game: Names are trade secrets; disclosure harms business | Court did not reach merits due to procedural grounds |
| Whether names are commercially sensitive information | Peterson: Names not commercially sensitive; public has right to know use of public funds | Big Game: Disclosure would cause competitive harm | Court did not reach merits due to procedural grounds |
| Proper application of balancing test under section 404(7)(a) | Peterson: Public interest in transparency outweighs Big Game’s interests | Big Game: Interest in confidentiality is greater; public interest insufficient | Public interest in access outweighed restriction; summary judgment for Peterson |
| Appellate review of alternate, unchallenged grounds | Peterson: District court’s decision stands on unaddressed, independent grounds | Big Game: Arguments on trade secrets and commercial info should suffice | Appellate court affirms because Big Game failed to challenge alternative ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendall v. Olsen, 424 P.3d 12 (Utah 2017) (court will not reverse on independent alternative grounds unless challenged)
- Federated Cap. Corp. v. Shaw, 428 P.3d 12 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (appellant must engage with district court's reasoning to demonstrate error)
- Golden Meadows Props., LC v. Strand, 241 P.3d 375 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (failure to attack all of district court’s grounds precludes reversal)