When must counties provide electronic copies of databases under GRAMA? Maese v. Tooele County Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed an important question about the scope of government obligations under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) in Maese v. Tooele County. The case provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling public records disputes.

Background and Facts

S. Steven Maese submitted a GRAMA request to Tooele County seeking an electronic copy of the county’s “property transaction database, in the electronic format that Tooele keeps it, in its entirety.” Alternatively, he requested a “compiled transaction report, for the past 20 years, in electronic format.” The county denied both requests, explaining that extracting the requested information would require creating new records or compiling, formatting, and manipulating existing data from their County Tax System (CTS) database. The county noted that property records were available for inspection and copying in existing formats.

Key Legal Issues

The appeal presented two main issues: first, whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the database’s classification under GRAMA that precluded summary judgment; and second, whether GRAMA requires governmental entities to provide copies of records rather than merely allowing access for inspection and copying.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court determined that characterizing the database under GRAMA presented a legal question, not a factual one, making summary judgment appropriate. The court noted that Maese failed to present admissible evidence disputing the county’s factual assertions after his IT expert’s affidavit was stricken on foundational grounds. Crucially, the court held that GRAMA’s exceptions in Utah Code § 63G-2-201(8)(a) permit governmental entities to deny requests that would require them to “create a record,” “compile, format, manipulate, package, summarize, or tailor information,” or “provide a record in a particular format” not currently maintained.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important boundaries for GRAMA requests involving electronic databases. Practitioners should carefully frame requests to seek existing records in their current format rather than requesting compilation or reformatting of data. The case also demonstrates the critical importance of presenting admissible evidence when challenging governmental entities’ factual assertions about their data systems and compilation requirements.