Wood v. Farmington City et al
Filing
116
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting 101 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 4/3/12. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
ELIZABETH WOOD, individually and as
personal representative of the ESTATE
OF BRIAN WOOD; JERRY WOOD; and
BECKY WOOD,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Case No. 2:10-cv-933-DB-PMW
v.
FARMINGTON CITY, a Utah municipal
corporation; DAVIS COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Utah; SALT
LAKE CITY, a Utah municipal
corporation; and JOSHUA BOUCHER, an
individual,
Defendants.
District Judge Dee Benson
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces
tecum (“Subpoena”) filed by Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah (“Mr.
Shurtleff”).2 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties.
Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine
the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
1
See docket no. 44.
2
See docket no. 101.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2008, Brian Wood (“Mr. Wood”) was shot and killed in a standoff
with police officers in Farmington, Utah. Mr. Wood’s wife, parents, and estate (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) have sued police forces involved in the standoff, alleging a violation of Mr. Wood’s
civil rights.
Subsequent to the shooting, the Utah Attorney General’s office (“UAG”) conducted an
investigation into the incident. On October 23, 2008, the UAG issued a letter of explanation and
a report of its findings related to the investigation into the shooting. In that letter, the UAG
stated that, based upon its investigation, the actions of the police officers involved in the incident
were legally justified. According to Plaintiffs, the UAG’s report includes a thorough discussion
of witness statements, physical evidence, ballistics, toxicology, timelines, taser logs, video logs,
the medical examiner’s report, and numerous other pieces of information that were obtained
and/or produced by the UAG’s investigators.
On September 28, 2011, Plaintiffs sent a Government Records Access and Management
Act (“GRAMA”) request to the UAG, seeking
complete copies of any documents, photographs, charts, witness
statements, testing data, ballistic testing results, summaries,
unedited recordings, either video or audio or any other related
media and/or digitally or analogically stored recordings in the
[UAG]’s possession at any time concerning the incident . . . in
connection with [its] investigation of the officer[-]involved
shooting of Brian E. Wood on September 22, 2008, in Farmington,
Utah.3
3
Docket no. 108, Exhibit B.
2
On October 14, 2011, Plaintiffs received a letter from the UAG denying their GRAMA
request.4 In that letter, the UAG indicated that the records sought by Plaintiffs related to the
UAG’s investigation were protected under Utah Code § 63G-2-305(9). On November 10, 2011,
Plaintiffs appealed the denial to the Deputy Attorney General.5 On November 15, 2011, the
Deputy Attorney General upheld the denial.6 In the letter upholding the denial, the Deputy
Attorney General stated that the records were protected because the investigation into the
incident was active and ongoing. In support of the decision to uphold the denial, the Deputy
Attorney General cited the same statutory provision cited by the UAG in its original denial letter,
Utah Code § 63G-2-305(9)(a), (c), (d), and (e).
On December 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in state court for judicial review of
the UAG’s denial of the GRAMA request.7 While that action was pending, Plaintiffs served the
Subpoena on Mr. Shurtleff on January 19, 2012.8 According to Plaintiffs, the Subpoena seeks
disclosure of the same information that is sought by their GRAMA request.
ANALYSIS
In his motion to quash, Mr. Shurtleff argues that the court should quash the Subpoena
because the information sought by the Subpoena is protected by certain privileges. Mr. Shurtleff
4
See id., Exhibit C.
5
See id., Exhibit D.
6
See id., Exhibit E.
7
See id., Exhibit F.
8
See id., Exhibit G.
3
also argues that the Subpoena should be quashed because the information sought by the
Subpoena is protected from disclosure by GRAMA. Finally, Mr. Shurtleff argues that the
Subpoena should be quashed because it is an attempt by Plaintiffs to circumvent the requirements
of GRAMA and their appeal of the GRAMA request currently pending in state court. Because
the court has determined that Mr. Shurtleff’s second argument is dispositive of the instant
motion, the court need not reach his other arguments.
In relevant part, Utah Code § 63G-2-305 provides:
The following records are protected if properly classified by a
governmental entity:
....
(9) records created or maintained for civil, criminal, or
administrative enforcement purposes or audit purposes, or
for discipline, licensing, certification, or registration
purposes, if release of the records:
(a) reasonably could be expected to interfere with
investigations undertaken for enforcement,
discipline, licensing, certification, or registration
purposes;
....
(c) would create a danger of depriving a person of a
right to a fair trial or impartial hearing;
(d) reasonably could be expected to disclose the
identity of a source who is not generally known
outside of government and, in the case of a record
compiled in the course of an investigation, disclose
information furnished by a source not generally
known outside of government if disclosure would
compromise the source; or
4
(e) reasonably could be expected to disclose
investigative or audit techniques, procedures,
policies, or orders not generally known outside of
government if disclosure would interfere with
enforcement or audit efforts . . . .
Utah Code § 63G-2-305(9)(a), (c)-(e).
Mr. Shurtleff argues that the Subpoena seeks records that fall within the above-referenced
categories and, consequently, that the records are protected from disclosure. The court agrees.
The UAG has submitted an affidavit along with their motion indicating that the records sought
do indeed fall within the above-referenced categories.9 The court accepts in good faith the
accuracy of that affidavit. Accordingly, the court concludes that the records sought by the
Subpoena are protected from disclosure by Utah Code § 63G-2-305(9)(a), (c), (d), and (e).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Shurtleff’s motion to quash the Subpoena10 is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
See docket no. 102 at 14-16.
See docket no. 101.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?