307 P.3d 704
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Packer, inventor and complaining witness, bid on Weber State’s lecture-capture contract and later suspected the bidding was rigged. He sought records via GRAMA and believed Weber State’s production was incomplete.
- After Packer reported his suspicions, the Utah Attorney General opened a criminal investigation, subpoenaed witnesses (including Packer), and obtained secrecy orders prohibiting disclosure of testimony and produced evidence.
- Weber State denied Packer’s second GRAMA request under the statutory exemption for records related to investigations/audits. Packer then filed district-court motions to (1) narrow the secrecy order / enforce the Subpoena Act, (2) sanction and disqualify counsel for the Attorney General and Weber State for alleged conflict, and (3) appoint a special prosecutor.
- The Attorney General and Weber State moved to dismiss or strike Packer’s motions for lack of standing. The district court concluded Packer lacked both traditional and alternative (public‑interest) standing and dismissed his motions.
- On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals reviewed standing as a question of law and affirmed: Packer lacked a distinct and palpable personal injury and was not an appropriate party to raise the public‑interest issues he asserted. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Packer's Argument | Attorney General / Weber State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Packer has traditional standing to enforce the Subpoena Act and obtain GRAMA materials | Packer sought court orders forcing compliance with the Subpoena Act and disclosure of documents; he claimed a personal stake as the complaining witness | The requested relief would not produce GRAMA materials during the investigation (statutory exemption); Packer lacks a distinct, personal injury | No—court held Packer lacks traditional standing because relief was unlikely to redress his claimed injury |
| Whether Packer has traditional standing to move to disqualify counsel / appoint special prosecutor for alleged conflict | Packer argued he could challenge opposing counsel’s conflict and seek disqualification and a special prosecutor | Defendants argued non‑clients and non‑targets generally lack standing to disqualify opposing counsel; Packer alleged no injury from the alleged conflict | No—court held Packer lacks traditional standing; he is not an adverse party/ client and alleges no personal injury |
| Whether adverse non‑parties (including pro se litigants) can assert opposing‑counsel conflicts | Packer argued that adverse parties, even pro se, may raise ethical conflicts of opposing counsel | Defendants contended only parties with a direct stake (clients/targets) may seek disqualification; non‑parties should use bar grievance procedures | Not reached as a broad rule; court assumed arguendo but held Packer lacked standing because he was not an adverse party or target |
| Whether Packer has alternative (public‑interest) standing to raise issues of public importance | Packer argued the matters (Subpoena Act compliance; professional conduct) are issues of public importance and he is an appropriate party | Defendants argued Packer lacked a real and personal interest and thus is not an appropriate party to raise broad public‑interest claims | No—court held Packer lacked alternative standing because he did not show a real and personal interest in the general public‑interest issues he raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Utah Chapter of Sierra Club v. Utah Air Quality Bd., 148 P.3d 960 (Utah 2006) (describing traditional and alternative standing tests)
- Hogs R Us v. Town of Fairfield, 207 P.3d 1221 (Utah 2009) (setting three‑part traditional standing test)
- Society of Prof'l Journalists, Utah Chapter v. Bullock, 743 P.2d 1166 (Utah 1987) (generalized grievances not suited for judicial resolution)
- Specht v. Big Water Town, 172 P.3d 306 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (dismissing appeal for lack of standing/jurisdiction)
- Chen v. Stewart, 123 P.3d 416 (Utah 2005) (party must have standing in the original proceeding to appeal)