Maese v. Tooele County
273 P.3d 388
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Maese's 2009 GRAMA request to Tooele County Recorder sought the property transaction database in electronic format or a 20-year compiled transaction report.
- County denied, saying it would have to create, compile, format, or tailor information and that it does not maintain a compiled report.
- Maese appealed; the Tooele County Commission upheld the denial; Maese filed suit challenging the denial and seeking summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Tooele County, ruling the statute does not require creation of a new record or a tailored electronic database.
- Maese argued the database itself is a public record and that the court should resolve disputes about material facts; the court treated the issue as a legal question.
- The court concluded, even if the database is a public record, GRAMA did not require disclosure in the form Maese requested because it would require creating or compiling a new record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CTS database is a public record under GRAMA | Maese contends the database itself is a public record and disputed facts preclude summary judgment. | Tooele County maintains that producing the database would require creating or compiling a new record not currently maintained. | Legal question; court held disposition based on GRAMA's creation/compilation limits, not on factual disputes. |
| Whether disclosure of access to records satisfies a copy-request under GRAMA | Maese argues access does not satisfy a request for an electronic copy of the database. | County satisfied GRAMA by making paper records accessible and permitting copies, arguing electronic copies were not required. | Access to public records can satisfy a copy request when feasible; here, no requirement to provide an electronic database. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305 (Utah 1998) (interpretation of GRAMA plain language)
- Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037 (Utah 1991) (statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932 (Utah 1994) (legal questions versus factual questions; statute interpretation)
- State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355 (Utah 1993) (the correct interpretation of a statute is a question of law)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schettler, 768 P.2d 950 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (summary judgment standard and evidentiary burden)
- Scott v. Majors, 1999 UT App 139 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (uncontested facts may support summary judgment when movant shows no genuine issue)
- Walter v. Stewart, 2003 UT App 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (summary judgment review for factual disputes)
- Energy Mgmt. Servs. LLC v. Shaw, 2005 UT App 90 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (scope of discovery and summary judgment considerations)