Opinion ID: 2830913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶63 We reverse the decision of the district court shielding Envision Ogden‘s bank records, the Quicken Summary, and the Post-it Note from disclosure. With respect to the bank records, there is no constitutional right to privacy in article I, section 14 of the state constitution that categorically exempts bank records from GRAMA. And the State has not argued that the records fall within any GRAMA-protected categories of information. With respect to the Quicken Summary and the Post-it Note, we agree with the district court that both documents are protected attorney work product under GRAMA. But because Envision Ogden no longer exists and the State closed its investigation four years ago, the interests favoring disclosure clearly outweigh the interests favoring nondisclosure. Accordingly, we remand to the district court to order disclosure of all documents, with appropriate redactions, and to determine whether Mr. Schroeder is entitled to attorney fees. 87 Id. § 63G-2-802(2)(b). 88 Burdick v. Horner Townsend & Kent, Inc., 2015 UT 8, ¶ 18, 345 P.3d 531. 25