Director upholds Wasatch County’s privilege designations in Daniels Canyon records appeal

Lonnie Pearson, director of the government records office, denied an appeal by Jason Bull seeking additional detail about records Wasatch County withheld as privileged in connection with Ordinance 25‑10 and the Daniels Canyon project. Attorney Miss Jones argued the county’s denial was conclusory and asked the director to require a privilege log or substantively equivalent descriptions to allow challenge of the privilege claims. "We need to look at factors such as the date, the parties, the nature of the communication," Jones said, arguing that some communications could predate litigation and therefore not be privileged.

County counsel Miss Thurgood responded that the county’s notice, including information later provided by the CAO, matched the level of detail recognized as sufficient by the courts. Thurgood said the withheld materials comprised attorney‑client communications, work product and government litigation strategy and therefore need not be disclosed in litigation‑style privilege logs. "The county provided a lot of records or access to records," she told the director, adding that the appeal process and in‑camera review are the appropriate means to challenge classifications.

After reviewing the materials in camera, Director Pearson found the CAO’s denial met GRAMA’s notice requirements under the applicable precedents and statutes and that the withheld records were properly classified as attorney‑client privileged, work product, or government litigation strategy. He concluded that the interests favoring restriction outweighed the public interest in disclosure in this instance and denied the appeal. Pearson said he would issue a written decision within seven business days; either party may appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.

The ruling preserves the county’s withholdings while leaving the record open to judicial review if the appellant pursues district‑court appeal.