Erin Larson appeals missing records, alleges city discussed tearing down his permitted home; appeal denied

Erin Larson asked the Department of Government Records on Sept. 18 to order Orem City to search again for public records about his multigenerational home and to refund a $300 fee, saying council members and staff had discussed whether the permitted, under‑construction house could be torn down.

"Tearing down a home that is under construction with a permit the city itself approved would violate my rights under the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments," Larson told the hearing panel. He said city council comments and the city development director's remarks led him to believe officials had explored ways to remove the house and that a substantial paper trail — meeting notes, memoranda and outgoing emails — was missing from the city's GRAMA production.

The director, after in‑camera review of the nine documents the city withheld as attorney‑client privileged, found Orem City demonstrated that it had performed a reasonable search for the scope Larson originally requested. City counsel Nathaniel Freeman told the director that staff narrowed Larson's initial broad request into three lenses (personnel, subject matter and communications), conducted an email search using four search terms Larson provided and produced roughly 160 emails; Freeman said only nine documents were withheld for legal privilege and that the city contacted about 78 employees in the search.

The director said the initial request was extremely broad, that duplicates and nonresponsive hits explained discrepancies between early search counts and final production, and that the nine withheld emails were appropriately classified as attorney‑client communications. The director also said the city's fee‑waiver analysis used the correct standard and that the extent of the work made charging a fee reasonable. "I do not find that Mr. Larson has shown that a reasonable search was not conducted," the director said, and denied the appeal, noting a written decision would be issued within seven business days and that Larson may appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.

Larson had asked the agency to order a full supplemental search that would include informal or derogatory nicknames officials used for the house in public meetings; he said those informal terms would not surface in ordinary keyword searches. The director suggested those items were more properly pursued through narrower follow‑up requests that identify specific dates, meetings or additional search terms rather than through the broad original request.

What happens next: The director's written order will explain the decision and the statutory appeal path. The hearing record shows Larson may pursue targeted follow‑up GRAMA requests or seek district court review of today's ruling.