Judge orders Estes Park Health to pay legal fees in public records dispute

After months of legal wrangling, shifting defenses, and public outcry, the Estes Valley Voice has secured a significant, albeit bittersweet, victory in its Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) lawsuit against Estes Park Health.

On July 17, Larimer County District Court Judge Carroll Michelle Brinegar ordered the taxpayer-funded hospital to pay the Voice’s legal fees and costs after it withheld a Letter of Intent tied to a major acquisition deal with UCHealth.

The court’s ruling comes after Estes Park Health, operated by the Park Hospital District, denied three separate CORA requests for the LOI between October 2024 and February 2025. The document, signed on October 3, outlines terms of a deal that would transfer operational control of the hospital to UCHealth for just $1 per year for 50 years, while local property owners would continue to pay taxes to support the facility.

As a government entity that imposes a property tax on residents, Estes Park Health is subject to the state’s open records laws. In March, the Voice petitioned the court, arguing that the LOI was clearly a public document, especially since the Park Hospital District’s directors selectively disclosed portions of the LOI in a public meeting on Wednesday, October 24, 2024, invalidating any claim that the document was privileged.

“If Estes Park Health wishes to avoid having to pay my clients’ attorney’s fees and costs for successfully litigating this matter (which, based on my past experience, can exceed $25,000 to file pleadings, briefs, and conduct a full hearing), it must release the LOI to them no later than March 19, 2025,” wrote Steve Zansberg, attorney for the Voice and president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, in an email to EPH’s lawyer. 

Despite repeated requests, EPH insisted the LOI was “confidential” and “commercially sensitive,” a claim it abruptly abandoned on May 6, the day of the Park Hospital District board election, when it released the document hours before polls closed.

“It’s hard not to see the timing as strategic,” said Editor and Founder of Estes Valley Voice, Patti Brown. “They treated the community like children.”

On May 20, EPH filed a motion asking the court to cancel the upcoming hearing and accept judgment against it, claiming it had fulfilled the Voice’s request. But in a whiplash reversal less than 48 hours later, EPH clarified that it did not admit to violating CORA, arguing it withdrew its opposition to conserve public funds. 

Judge Brinegar declined to reopen the case, declaring it moot since the LOI had been released, but she upheld the requirement that EPH pay the Voice’s legal fees—something the law only allows when documents have been unlawfully withheld. The court has instructed the Voice to submit an affidavit of costs so it can enter a final judgment on legal fees.

“The fact that EPH conceded judgment the same day we filed our hearing brief (rather than show up to defend its position) and the judge’s order requires it to pay the plaintiffs’ fees and costs, proves, definitely, what we already knew: EPH could not cite any statutory provision that allowed it to withhold the LOI with UCHealth,” said Zansberg.

He added that while he does not have a recording of a June 6 teleconference that took place between the judge and attorneys for both parties, his recollection is that EPH’s lawyer stated, “we could not defend” the withholding decisions. Brown has applied for the transcript of that call from the court.

In the July 17 ruling, the hospital argues that it “did not ‘concede judgment’ to the effect that there were violations of CORA. Rather, out of a desire to conserve public funds, Defendant simply withdrew its opposition to the relief requested.” EPH has yet to respond to specific questions about the court’s ruling, the timing of the LOI release, or its legal strategy.

For Brown, the outcome offers legal validation, but little satisfaction. “The only reason the law allows for the judgment to be paid is if the other side has expressly violated the state’s CORA policies,” Brown said. “I’ve had lawyer friends tell me, ‘I know you didn’t get the ruling you wanted, but you did get a win.’ It just doesn’t feel like a win because the court didn’t make a ruling on what is now a moot issue since the documents had been released to the public.”

Beyond the courtroom, Brown is more concerned with the lack of transparency surrounding the deal itself, and the long-term viability of the hospital. 

“Here’s the bottom line: I don’t necessarily believe it’s entirely the wrong deal,” Brown said. “But I think the question we have to ask as a community is, is this the only deal we can get? Is it the best deal? Are we settling because we think our hair is on fire and we don’t think we’ll have a hospital without this deal?”

Brown worries UCHealth will deem the facility unsustainable. “If I’m being honest, I don’t think we’ll have a hospital in 18 months,” Brown said. “I think UCHealth will look at the bottom line and see that since we have less than five beds filled a day, that doesn’t cover the bottom line.”

Brown has also filed a new CORA request for a full accounting of Estes Park Health’s legal expenses related to the case. Under Colorado law, the hospital has three business days to respond, or up to seven if it claims an extension. 

“The community deserves to know how much of their money went to defending the indefensible,” said Brown.

The next opportunity for public input comes soon. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser will host a public meeting on Thursday, July 31, at 4 p.m. at the Estes Park Community Center. The meeting is intended to gather community comments on the proposed UCHealth acquisition before the state rules on its legality.

“It’s not a Q&A,” Brown clarifies. “It’s an opportunity to comment on this before they rule whether or not this deal is legal, which it likely is. It’s all very administratively frustrating, and it has felt like rope-a-dope.”