By Jeffrey A. Roberts
CFOIC Executive Director
The Colorado Judicial Department cannot be sued for delaying its response to a request for administrative records if the records eventually are provided to the requester, the Court of Appeals ruled last week.
P.A.I.R.R. 2, which governs the disclosure of records concerning judicial branch operations, “provides no cause of action when all responsive records have been made available for inspection, even if the production of those records was delayed,” a three-judge appellate panel decided.

Colorado’s high courts determined several years ago that the judiciary is not subject to the Colorado Open Records Act — unlike the executive branch, legislature and all other governments in Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court in 2015 issued Rule 2 – Public Access to Administrative Records (P.A.I.R.R. 2), which tracks much of the language in CORA but differs in some key areas such as access to employees’ disciplinary records.
The response times in P.A.I.R.R. 2 are similar to those in CORA — three business days or an additional seven business days if “extenuating circumstances exist.”
The opinion published last Thursday had to do with hearing transcripts requested by Jonathan Warnick in a First Judicial District domestic relations case that involved him. In September 2023, Warnick asked for “the dates the transcriber was able to access the audio recordings” because he was trying to determine “why the transcripts [he] paid for had such a long delay.”
About a month later, Warnick filed a complaint under P.A.I.R.R. 2, alleging that the First Judicial District had “willful[ly] and purposeful[ly]” refused to respond to his request for records. “Over the next few months, the First Judicial District worked with Warnick to fulfill his information requests,” the Court of Appeals opinion says, adding that he received additional records in October 2023 and in mid-January 2024. In an affidavit, the records custodian wrote that she had sent Warnick “all responsive documents.”
Jefferson County District Court Judge Todd Vriesman then dismissed Warnick’s lawsuit, ruling that P.A.I.R.R. 2 only allows someone to sue when they have been “denied an inspection of a record.” The judge wrote “there is no claim for damages or delay in responding to record inspection requests.”
The Court of Appeals agreed.
“The undisputed facts establish that Warnick was not denied inspection of any record,” says the opinion, written by Judge Karl Schock. “Even in his complaint, Warnick alleged only that the First Judicial District had refused to respond to his request, not that it had denied it. And by the time of the court’s dismissal, the First Judicial District had responded repeatedly, providing Warnick all the responsive documents it had located.”
“P.A.I.R.R. 2 allows for an action only when a person has been denied inspection of a record,” Schock concluded. “… Thus, when all responsive records have been made available, the rule does not provide for any additional relief.”
The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition often hears from frustrated requesters who don’t receive records by the deadlines in CORA, but lawsuits over delayed responses are rare. An attorney sued the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in 2020 after the agency failed to provide COVID-19 records on time, but the case was settled.
Like P.A.I.R.R. 2, CORA gives “any person denied the right to inspect any record” the right to sue in district court.
Follow the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition on X (formerly Twitter) @CoFOIC. Like CFOIC’s Facebook page. Do you appreciate the information and resources provided by CFOIC? Please consider making a tax-deductible donation.