Utah Court of Appeals
What happens when appellants fail to challenge all grounds for summary judgment? Big Game Forever v. Peterson Explained
Summary
Big Game Forever challenged the State Records Committee’s decision requiring disclosure of subcontractor names from expenditure reports related to its state contracts for wolf delisting efforts. The district court granted summary judgment for Peterson on three independent grounds: the names were not trade secrets, not commercial information, and the public interest in disclosure outweighed any privacy interest under Utah Code section 63G-2-404(7)(a).
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Big Game Forever v. Peterson demonstrates a crucial appellate principle: failing to challenge all independent grounds for a district court’s ruling can doom an appeal, even when other grounds are vigorously contested.
Background and Facts
Big Game Forever, a nonprofit working on wolf delisting efforts, contracted with the Utah Department of Natural Resources for $5.1 million. When journalist Eric Peterson requested expenditure reports under GRAMA, the Department initially redacted subcontractor names. The State Records Committee reversed this decision, finding the public interest in transparency outweighed privacy concerns. Big Game sought judicial review, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented three questions: whether subcontractor names constituted trade secrets, whether they qualified as commercial information under Utah Code section 63G-2-305, and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed any privacy interest under the balancing test in section 63G-2-404(7)(a).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The district court ruled against Big Game on all three grounds. On appeal, Big Game challenged only the first two rulings—that the names were neither trade secrets nor commercial information. The court applied the independent alternative grounds doctrine, holding that “we will not reverse a ruling of the district court that rests on independent alternative grounds where the appellant challenges only [some] of those grounds.”
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive appellate briefing. The court noted that Rule 24 requires appellants to “explain, with reasoned analysis supported by citations to legal authority and the record, why the party should prevail.” Big Game’s conclusory statements about its balancing interests were insufficient to meet this burden. Practitioners must address every independent ground supporting an adverse ruling or risk affirmance on unchallenged alternative bases.
Case Details
Case Name
Big Game Forever v. Peterson
Citation
2024 UT App 78
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20210792-CA
Date Decided
May 23, 2024
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An appellant’s failure to challenge all independent alternative grounds for a district court’s ruling precludes appellate review of unchallenged grounds, even when other grounds are vigorously contested.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal conclusions and ultimate grant or denial of summary judgment
Practice Tip
When appealing summary judgment based on multiple independent grounds, challenge every ground in your principal brief or risk affirmance on unchallenged alternative bases.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.