If you have received a petition, scroll down to "What to do if a petition is filed against you."

Utah Vexatious Requester Tracker

Every petition filed under Utah Code § 63G-2-209, what each agency had to prove, and how each was decided.

Since May 2023, Utah agencies have been able to ask the state to declare a person a "vexatious requester." If the petition is granted, the agency owes that person nothing in response to public records requests for as long as a year.

The remedy runs against a person, not against a request. The records themselves are never argued about. Being declared vexatious is not the same as losing a fight over whether particular documents are public. It means the target of the petition has lost the ability to ask for them.

This page tracks every petition in Utah that has produced a public order or determination. If you have a petition or information you think should be added, please send it to alex@1adocket.org.

The petitions

Tracker of petitions filed by government officials in Utah under Utah Code Section 63G-2-20: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AtlqiLMINestCjfCFNIvywNAJ971OuTm-bMg8FG51vE/edit?usp=sharing

What the decisions establish

Seven orders across six decided matters is a small body of law, but the decisions are more specific than the statute and they point in consistent directions.

Volume alone has not been decisive. Tooele City prevailed against Kevin Sullivan on 21 requests, and the Committee said plainly that 21 was not enough on volume; the finding rested on his communications. The University of Utah lost against Ian Cooperstein on more than 200. The number of requests is the first statutory factor, not the test.

Requests predating the statute cannot be counted. Section 209 took effect May 3, 2023. In the Cooperstein decision the Committee found that most of the requests at issue predated enactment and could not be weighed against him retroactively. That alone defeated the petition.

Allegations of hostility need corroboration. In the Treasurer's case against Brady Eames, the Committee granted the petition but declined to credit the agency's evidence of hostile communications, finding it rested on uncorroborated testimony. In Tooele, by contrast, documented threatening communications carried a petition that the request count could not.

Mitigating factors shorten the order. Utah County asked for the statutory maximum against Mark Allen on a record of 435 requests. The Director gave six months, citing the public-interest value of some of his requests, his good-faith participation in the process, letters of support from outside organizations, and the absence of any prior petition against him. The same reasoning cut the Treasurer's request from twelve months to seven.

The showing must be individualized. The Lieutenant Governor's Office asked the Government Records Office to treat four requesters as a single vexatious actor on the theory that they were working in concert. The initial determination rejected that reading: the statute requires a showing as to each respondent.

Not appearing is costly. Kevin Sullivan did not attend his hearing or submit anything in writing. The Committee noted it had no choice but to accept the city's evidence at face value.

No respondent has recovered fees. The statute permits a court to award attorney fees where an agency's petition lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law, and waives governmental immunity for that claim. No published decision reflects such an award.

What to do if a petition is filed against you

This section is general information about how the process works. It is not legal advice.

You can respond, and you should. The process includes a hearing. Every respondent who has appeared and participated has fared better than the one who did not. Written responses and participation in mediation were both cited as mitigating factors in the Allen decision.

The agency carries the burden. It must describe the specific conduct alleged, support the petition with a declaration, and persuade the decisionmaker under the factors in Section 209(9). A petition can also be declined a hearing outright at the screening stage under Section 209(3).

Know which requests can count. Requests you made before May 3, 2023 cannot be held against you.

Relief is capped at one year. An order cannot last longer, and the decisionmaker can and does grant less. Orders so far have ranged from six to twelve months.

A granting order must explain itself. It has to state its reasons, describe the specific conduct found vexatious, and inform you of your right to seek judicial review in district court under Section 63G-2-404.

Mitigation matters. Evidence that your requests served a public purpose, that you engaged in good faith, and that no petition has been filed against you before has measurably reduced the length of orders.

There is a fee provision. If the agency's petition lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law, a court may award you attorney fees, and the state's immunity does not bar the claim.

The Government Records Ombudsman is free. The office mediates records disputes and is a reasonable first call.

How this tracker is built

Entries come from decisions and orders published by the Utah State Records Committee and its successor, the Government Records Office, at archives.utah.gov, and from petitions and determinations obtained directly. Every entry links to its source document.

Section 209 was enacted by S.B. 231 in the 2023 general session and took effect May 3, 2023. The State Records Committee decided these petitions until May 2025, when S.B. 277 abolished it and transferred its duties to the Government Records Office, whose director is appointed by the governor.

What this tracker may be missing. It is built from published decisions. A petition that was withdrawn, resolved informally, or declined a hearing at the screening stage may never have produced a published order and would not appear here. A records request seeking the complete list of petitions filed is outstanding with the Government Records Office. Whatever it returns will be published here.

One published decision, No. 24-51, is a scheduling order rather than a ruling on the merits. It is included because it shows the Committee reversing an initial recommendation to decline a hearing.

Submit a petition, a document, or a correction

If you know of a petition that does not appear here, or if something on this page is wrong or out of date, please tell us. Documents are welcome.

Email alex@1adocket.org, or tips@1adocket.org if you would rather not write to a person directly. Tell us if you would prefer not to be named, and we will not name you.

1A Docket publishes information about public records and First Amendment law. Nothing here is legal advice, and contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.