Opinion
Case No. 20020382-CA.
Filed June 12, 2003. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Second District, Ogden Department, The Honorable Ernest W. Jones.
James C. Godfrey, Gunnison, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Brent A. Burnett, J. Frederic Voros Jr., and Allan L. Larson, Salt Lake City, and David C. Wilson, Ogden, for Appellees.
Before Judges Jackson, Billings, and Greenwood.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Godfrey challenges the trial court's dismissal of his complaints against the State of Utah, Ogden City, and Weber County. "We . . . review the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss . . . for correctness."Patterson v. American Fork City, 2003 UT 7, ¶ 9, 67 P.3d 466. We conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Godfrey's complaint against the State and affirm its dismissal of the other two complaints.
I. Claims Against State
Godfrey attempted to serve the State Records Committee (Committee) by serving the Utah Attorney General. This service was fatally defective and did not confer jurisdiction on the trial court. Utah's rule concerning service of process on a state committee states that service "[u]pon a department or agency of the state of Utah, or upon any public board, commission or body, subject to suit" is effectuated by "delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to any member of its governing board, or to its executive employee or secretary." Utah R.Civ.P. 4(d)(1)(K).
Godfrey failed to serve a member of the Committee's governing board, its executive employee, or its secretary. Instead, he sought to serve the Committee by serving the Utah Attorney General. In the absence of effective service of process, the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear Godfrey's complaint against the State. See Skanchy v. Calcados Ortope SA, 952 P.2d 1071, 1074 (Utah 1998).
II. Claims Against Ogden City
The trial court did not err in dismissing Godfrey's complaint against Ogden City because Godfrey received all of the records to which he is entitled under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). Godfrey requested twenty-six items from Ogden City. Ogden provided fourteen of the items but denied his request for the remaining twelve items. We confine our analysis to whether Ogden City properly denied Godfrey's request as to the remaining twelve items.
GRAMA does not impose on any governmental entity a duty to provide access to all records it can conceivably obtain. See State v. Spry, 2001 UT App 75, ¶ 16, 21 P.3d 675 ("Requiring the State to disclose to the defense all information to which it has `access' under GRAMA `would place a herculean burden on the prosecutor to search through [the] records of every state agency' looking for relevant written or recorded statements on behalf of the defendant simply because the State has access to the records under GRAMA." (Citation omitted.)).
Ogden City denied Godfrey's requests 2 and 3 (wherein Godfrey requested "Detective Lucas's license plate search conducted at the police station and Detective Lucas's and Ms. Mindy Maughan's DMV license plate search") because these were manual searches done by the officer on a computer and later between the officer and Maughan and, therefore, no record existed to provide to Godfrey. Preliminary record searches are not records pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 63-2-103(18)(b)(i) (1997), which excludes from the definition of records "temporary drafts or similar materials prepared for the originator's personal use."
Similarly, Ogden City denied Godfrey's requests 6, 7, and 8 (wherein Godfrey requested notes of interviews of the victims) because any notes potentially taken by Detective Lucas do not qualify as records under GRAMA. "Record does not mean: (i) temporary drafts or similar materials prepared for the originator's personal use or . . . (vii) . . . personal notes prepared . . . for the originator's personal use. . . ." Id. § 63-2-103(18)(b). Accordingly, Ogden City was not required to provide these documents to Godfrey under GRAMA.
Ogden City denied Godfrey's requests 4 and 5 (wherein Godfrey requested DMV records and license plate listings for Weber County) because they were not Ogden City records. To the extent that these records exist, they are State records. Similarly, Ogden City denied Godfrey's request 16 (wherein Godfrey requested a "Booking property report") because the record was made by Weber County and was not in Ogden City's possession. Finally, Ogden City denied Godfrey's requests 23 and 24 (wherein Godfrey requested trial exhibits) because the requests were given to the Weber County Attorney's Office and are not in the City's possession. No entity is required to go looking for records compiled by another agency or political subdivision. See State v. Spry, 2001 UT App 75, ¶ 16, 21 P.3d 675 (refusing to require State to turn over all documents that might be helpful to defendant solely because it has "potential access"). Thus, Ogden City properly denied Godfrey's request for these documents.
Ogden City properly denied Godfrey's request 12 (wherein Godfrey requested Detective Lucas's sample exhibit given to the Weber County Attorney's Office of how the Utah State database worked). Ogden City no longer possessed the exhibit and was "not required to create a record in response to [Godfrey's] request." Utah Code Ann. § 63-2-201(8)(a) (1997). Therefore, Ogden City properly denied Godfrey's request for this document.
Ogden City also denied Godfrey's request 17 (requesting the "misdemeanor police report") because it was a South Ogden Police report. Utah Code Ann. § 63-2-701 (1997) allows political subdivisions to adopt ordinances "relating to information practices, including classification, designation, access, denials, . . . management, retention, and amendment of records." An Ogden ordinance provides that
When a record is temporarily held by a custodial City agency, pursuant to that custodial agency's statutory or ordinance functions . . . . [t]he record shall be considered a record of the agency or agencies which usually keeps or maintains that record, and any requests for access to such records shall be directed to that agency or agencies, rather than the custodial agency.
Ogden, UT, Code § 4-5-3(C) (2003). Accordingly, Godfrey was required to submit his request for this document to the City of South Ogden.
The trial court correctly dismissed Godfrey's complaint against Ogden City because the City provided Godfrey all of the records to which he was entitled under GRAMA.
III. Claims Against Weber County
The trial court did not err in dismissing Godfrey's GRAMA complaint against Weber County because Godfrey did not present
Weber County with an adequate GRAMA request. Specifically, paragraph 12 of Godfrey's complaint states: "On April 12, Twenty-Six (26) items were requested from the District Attorney; (ATTACHMENT 2) 2nd District Court of Utah, Clerk of the Court, Public Defender Office; Ogden City Police Department-Chief of Police. No response was timely." However, Godfrey's "Attachment 2" contained no April 12, 2001 GRAMA request to Weber County. The only letter dated April 12, 2001 was addressed to the Ogden City Police Department.
The only correspondence that Godfrey made part of the record is a July 6, 2001 letter to the District Attorney's office regarding: "GRAMA Appeal Request, case no 951900679." The letter states:
[O]n June 4th, 2001, a GRAMA request was mailed and would have been received on June 7th, 2001. This is a third request and/or appeal. On June 28th, 2001, Ogden City claimed ITEMS 9 thru [sic] 11, 13, 18 thru [sic] 22, 25, and 26 are within your control. Please refer to enclosedATTACHMENT 1 and ATTACHMENT 2.
However, there were no such attachments to the letter or the complaint. These documents demonstrate that Weber County did not receive appropriate notice of Godfrey's GRAMA requests. Thus, any judicial proceeding requiring Weber County to produce the documents was premature.See Utah Code Ann. § 63-2-204(1) (1997) ("A person making a request for a record shall furnish the governmental entity with a written request containing . . . a description of the records requested that identifies the record with reasonable specificity."). Accordingly, the trial court was correct in granting Weber County's motion to dismiss.
IV. Conclusion
The trial court did not err in dismissing Godfrey's complaints against the State, Ogden City, and Weber County because (1) it lacked jurisdiction to hear Godfrey's complaint against the State; (2) Ogden City provided Godfrey all the records to which he was entitled under GRAMA; and (3) Weber County did not receive adequate notice of Godfrey's GRAMA request. Because the trial court did not err in dismissing Godfrey's complaints against the State, Ogden City, and Weber County, we do not reach Godfrey's damage claims. Accordingly, we affirm.
WE CONCUR: Judith M. Billings, Associate Presiding Judge, and Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge.