Can governmental entities appeal adverse decisions in GRAMA cases? Salt Lake City Corp. v. Haik Explained

A recent Utah Court of Appeals decision in Salt Lake City Corp. v. Haik clarified important questions about who may seek judicial review in Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) cases and when attorney work product is protected from disclosure.

Background and Facts

Mark Haik filed a GRAMA request with Salt Lake City seeking records related to the City’s employment of outside counsel in the 1990s for water-exchange agreement matters. The City refused to disclose certain opinion letters prepared by the attorney, claiming protection under GRAMA’s attorney-client privilege and work product exemptions. The Salt Lake City Records Appeals Board sided with Haik and ordered disclosure, but the City then petitioned the district court for judicial review.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three main issues: whether governmental entities may seek judicial review of adverse appeals board decisions under GRAMA, whether the City’s denial letter provided adequate notice despite containing incorrect statutory citations, and whether the requested records constituted protected attorney work product under GRAMA section 63G-2-305(17).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Salt Lake City. On jurisdiction, the court interpreted GRAMA section 63G-2-701(6) broadly, concluding that “any party” to a proceeding before an appeals board may petition for judicial review, including governmental entities seeking to protect records. The court distinguished this from situations involving only requesters appealing denials by chief administrative officers.

Regarding the denial notice, the court applied a substantial compliance standard, finding that despite the City’s typographical error in citing the wrong statutory section, the letter adequately informed Haik of the grounds for denial. The court determined the opinion letters constituted protected attorney work product under the 2011 version of GRAMA, as they contained the attorney’s mental impressions and legal theories concerning anticipated litigation over the water-exchange agreements.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for GRAMA practitioners. Governmental entities now have clear authority to seek judicial review when appeals boards order disclosure of records the entity believes are protected. However, entities must still ensure their denial letters provide adequate notice to requesters, even if minor errors occur. For records sought to be protected as work product, entities must demonstrate the materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation and contain attorney mental impressions or legal theories concerning that litigation.