Guides
General information about Utah law. Not legal advice.
Answering a vexatious requester petition
What the statute permits, when it is due, and what the record shows has mattered.
There is no official form for a written statement responding to a vexatious requester petition. Section 209(4) simply permits one. This page sets out what the statute allows and what the decided cases show has weighed with the decisionmaker.
No later than five business days before the hearing
A respondent may submit a written statement responding to the petition, to both the director and the agency. It can be the same document as any response filed to an initial determination.
Note that this runs backward from the hearing date, not forward from the filing. A hearing can be set as soon as 16 calendar days after the petition is filed.
§ 63G-2-209(4), (3)(a)Filing nothing does not delay anything
If no statement is filed and the respondent does not appear, the director either cancels the hearing or holds it without them, and the decision clock still runs from the date the hearing was set for. In one decided case the record notes the agency's evidence was accepted at face value.
§ 63G-2-209(6), (8)(a)What the director is required to weigh
Section 209(9) lists the factors: the number of requests submitted to that entity, including any still pending; their scope, nature, content, language, and subject matter; the nature and content of related communications; any pattern amounting to abuse of the right of access or substantial interference with the entity's operations; and any other relevant factor.
Those are the categories a response has to engage with, because they are the ones the decision has to address.
What the decided cases show has mattered
Volume alone has not been the test. One petition succeeded on 21 requests where the finding rested on communications; another failed on more than 200.
Requests predating May 3, 2023 aren't counted. That alone defeated one petition.
Allegations of hostile communications have needed corroboration. One decision declined to credit an agency's evidence because it rested on uncorroborated testimony.
A public purpose in the requests has cut against the petition. Requests shown to have prompted audits and statutory reforms could not be deemed an abuse of the right of access.
Mitigation has shortened orders rather than defeating them. Public-interest value, good-faith participation, letters of support from outside organizations, and the absence of any prior petition cut one requested year to six months.
What the process does and does not allow
There is no discovery. The director may issue subpoenas to compel testimony or evidence and may ask a district court to enforce them.
A person whose legal interests may be substantially affected may request to intervene, but not later than 10 business days before the hearing.
§ 63G-2-209(5), (7)After the order
The order issues within seven business days of the hearing, or of the date a cancelled hearing was scheduled. Either side may petition a district court for review within 30 days. Requesting mediation through the Government Records Ombudsman suspends that clock.
§§ 63G-2-209(8), (10) · 63G-2-404