Records director remands Wasatch County over withheld copyrighted permit records

Director Lonnie Pearson remanded a Wasatch County GRAMA request on grounds the county did not process the petitioner’s updated request in accordance with Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). The petitioner, Ms. Kozakowski, had sought building-permit materials she says are necessary to challenge a separate permit decision; the county declined to allow copying of third‑party copyrighted materials and limited on‑site review.

Ms. Kozakowski told the hearing she was given only “about 5 minutes standing in the reception area” to view records and could not copy or otherwise meaningfully inspect them. “We could not really see anything,” she said during her presentation, arguing that fair‑use exceptions and the need to confront the administrative record should allow selective disclosure for adjudicative purposes.

Wasatch County’s representative, Mr. Wilkerson, said the county’s position rests on federal copyright law and Utah GRAMA: “The short answer is that copyrighted materials are not records under GRAMA,” he told the director, citing Utah Code 63G‑2‑103(25)(b)(4). The county said its practice is to permit in‑office inspection of copyrighted building plans but not copying or photographing, and suggested the petitioner may return to review the files in person.

Pearson questioned whether the county’s chief administrative officer (CAO) had correctly treated the later request as a CAO appeal and whether that process prevented the petitioner from exhausting administrative remedies before the CAO. Finding that the county failed to provide an initial response for many of the items in the second request and that the CAO’s handling effectively prejudiced the petitioner’s ability to perfect appeals, Pearson granted the appeal and ordered the county to reprocess the request so the petitioner may seek appropriate remedies if unhappy with the CAO’s response.

The director encouraged mediation through the government records ombudsman and said the county need not reproduce material already provided, only address the outstanding items; the county may rely on copyright protections where legally appropriate but must document and explain its determinations when reprocessing the request.

The director’s ruling remanding the matter will be followed by a written decision and allows either party to pursue appeal avenues allowed under GRAMA.