Schroeder v. Utah Attorney General's Office
358 P.3d 1075
Utah2015Background
- David Schroeder filed a GRAMA request for records from the closed AG investigation into Envision Ogden, which alleged diversion of nonprofit funds to political campaigns.
- The AG obtained Envision Ogden’s bank records by subpoena during a criminal investigation, and an investigator prepared a Quicken-format summary and a Post-it note with prosecutor directions.
- The AG released some records but withheld the bank records, Quicken Summary, and Post-it Note; the State Records Committee ordered partial disclosure and the parties sought judicial review.
- The district court held (1) Article I, §14 of the Utah Constitution barred disclosure of the bank records, and (2) the Quicken Summary and Post-it Note were attorney work product and should not be disclosed.
- The Utah Supreme Court reviewed constitutional and GRAMA issues: whether §14 precludes disclosure of lawfully subpoenaed records; whether the two documents are work product; and whether disclosure should nonetheless be ordered under GRAMA balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schroeder) | Defendant's Argument (AG Office) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Art. I, §14 bar disclosure of bank records the State obtained by subpoena? | §14 should not block access because records were lawfully obtained and GRAMA presumes disclosure. | Thompson and §14 create a strong privacy right in bank records that conflicts with GRAMA. | Reversed district court: §14 does not categorically bar disclosure when records were lawfully obtained by subpoena; AG did not invoke any GRAMA exemption, so records must be released (with required redactions). |
| Are the Quicken Summary and Post-it Note protected attorney work product under GRAMA §63G-2-305(16),(17)? | Documents are investigatory but were prepared under prosecutors' direction and thus anticipate litigation. | AG contended work-product protection applies to shield them from disclosure. | Affirmed classification: both were prepared solely in anticipation of litigation and disclose prosecutors’ mental impressions; thus they are work product. |
| If protected, should the court still order disclosure under GRAMA §63G-2-404(8)(a) balancing? | Public interest in exposing potential public corruption and the long-closed investigation outweighs diminished work-product interests. | Preservation of prosecutors’ mental impressions and investigative effectiveness weigh against disclosure. | Reversed district court: balancing must be particularized; here public interest and elapsed time since closure outweigh protection—order disclosure with redactions. |
| Is Schroeder entitled to appellate attorney fees under GRAMA §63G-2-802(2)(a)? | Seeks fees as prevailing requester. | AG argues discretion/other factors may negate fees. | Court declined to decide; remanded to district court to exercise statutory discretion and consider listed factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 810 P.2d 415 (Utah 1991) (recognized privacy interest in bank records but held lawfully issued subpoenas can compel bank disclosure)
- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Automated Geographic Reference Ctr., 200 P.3d 643 (Utah 2008) (interpreting GRAMA's two-tier work-product protections and distinction between routine records and materials prepared in anticipation of litigation)
- Deseret News Publishing Co. v. Salt Lake County, 182 P.3d 372 (Utah 2008) (GRAMA presumes disclosure; government bears burden to justify nondisclosure)
- Supernova Media, Inc. v. Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss, LLC, 297 P.3d 599 (Utah 2013) (balancing determinations under GRAMA reviewed for abuse of discretion)