541 P.3d 949
Utah2024Background
- Cathy McKitrick, an investigative journalist, requested records relating to an investigation into Kerry Gibson from Ogden City under GRAMA.
- Ogden City denied the request, classifying the records as “private” and “protected.” The city’s decision was upheld internally, but McKitrick appealed to the Ogden City Records Review Board, which ordered release of redacted records.
- Gibson, the subject of the records, filed a petition for judicial review to block their release; he named the City and the Review Board, but not McKitrick, as respondents.
- McKitrick intervened and successfully moved to dismiss Gibson’s petition for lack of standing, but then sought attorney fees and costs under Utah Code § 63G-2-802 from Ogden City for defending the appeal.
- The district court denied McKitrick’s fee motion, holding the statute did not apply because neither the City nor the requester initiated the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | McKitrick's Argument | Ogden City's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Fee Provision | Fee statute applies regardless of who appeals; she prevails if she vindicates access rights. | Statute applies only if requester or city appeals Review Board’s decision. | Statute is broad; applies even if third party (not city or requester) initiates judicial review. |
| Adequacy of Statement of Position | Her court filings constituted proper notice under statute. | Court filings did not put City on notice or meet statutory statement requirements. | Court filings can qualify; McKitrick’s filings adequately explained her position and notified City. |
| If McKitrick “Substantially Prevailed” | Dismissal of Gibson’s petition confirmed her right to access, thus she substantially prevailed. | Must have prevailed directly against City or on the merits to be eligible. | District court must determine on remand, cannot read in additional requirements; prevailing may occur even if not against City or on merits. |
| Application of Statutory Factors | Argues factors (public benefit, interest, reasonableness) support fee award, should be decided in her favor. | Factors not meaningfully considered since merits not addressed. | Remand to district court for full evaluation of statutory factors and reasonableness of fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroeder v. Utah Att’y Gen.’s Off., 358 P.3d 1075 (Utah 2015) (deference to district court’s fee decisions and relevance of statutory discretion)
- R.T. Nielson Co. v. Cook, 40 P.3d 1119 (Utah 2002) (substantial prevailing under attorney fee statutes contextually determined)
- Murray City v. Maese, 251 P.3d 843 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (responsive judicial pleadings as potential statements of position under GRAMA)