Utah Court of Appeals
When can Utah government agencies charge compilation fees under GRAMA? Graham v. Davis County Solid Waste Management Explained
Summary
Graham requested various environmental records from the Davis County Solid Waste Management District, which imposed a $280 compilation fee for staff time to gather documents from multiple sources. Graham sued under GRAMA claiming the fee violated the statute. The trial court granted summary judgment for the District.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Graham v. Davis County Solid Waste Management, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified when governmental agencies can charge compilation fees for public records requests under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA).
Background and Facts
Mark Graham requested various environmental records from the Davis County Solid Waste Management District. The District agreed to provide the documents but imposed a $280 fee for 14 hours of staff time to compile records from multiple sources, including individual work stations, operator logs, testing protocols, general files, and computer databases. Graham challenged this fee under GRAMA, arguing the statute prohibited such compilation charges.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was interpreting GRAMA section 63-2-203(2), which allows agencies to charge for “staff time for summarizing, compiling, or tailoring the record either into an organization or media” when compiling records “in a form other than that normally maintained by the governmental entity.” The court had to balance public access rights against agencies’ operational needs.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals established clear parameters for GRAMA compilation fees. Agencies may charge when: (1) a request specifies documents be compiled in a different form and the requestor consents to fees, or (2) the request requires extracting materials from larger sources where it’s not feasible to allow self-service retrieval. However, agencies cannot charge merely for assembling readily available documents. The burden is on the agency to justify compilation necessity and inform requestors of potential fees before beginning work.
Practice Implications
This decision provides crucial guidance for both requestors and agencies. Practitioners should advise clients that agencies must demonstrate compilation necessity and cannot impose fees when documents could reasonably be self-retrieved. Agencies should provide advance notice of potential fees and offer self-service options when appropriate. The ruling strikes an important balance between ensuring public access and preventing agencies from being overwhelmed by burdensome records requests.
Case Details
Case Name
Graham v. Davis County Solid Waste Management
Citation
1999 UT App 136
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 980218-CA
Date Decided
April 29, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A governmental agency may assess compilation fees under GRAMA when it must extract materials from larger sources or organize documents in a form other than normally maintained, provided the burden is on the agency to justify such fees.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for granting motion to amend complaint; correction-of-error standard for statutory interpretation; viewing evidence in light most favorable to non-moving party for summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging GRAMA compilation fees, ensure the record establishes whether the agency could reasonably allow the requestor to search for and retrieve documents themselves rather than imposing compilation charges.
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.