By: Sachet A. Sullivan | The Zion Times
Recently unsealed search warrants in the criminal case against contractor David Bruce Kuykendall describe an expansive, multi-year fraud investigation that investigators said was supported by detailed financial calculations, billing records, and accounting data involving multiple business entities and 16 homeowners.
But records now show that many of the financial allegations outlined in those warrants never appeared in the formal charges that followed, and the financial documents investigators said would support those claims were never produced in discovery before the case was dismissed.
Two Warrants, Sweeping Allegations
The first search warrant, issued April 29, 2025, alleged a five-year pattern of deceptive business practices involving Diamond K Construction and 16 homeowners. Investigators told the court that records from 2019 through 2024 would demonstrate invoice inflation, misuse of cost-plus contracts, failure to provide lien notices, overbilling, falsification of documents, and participation in a criminal enterprise.
To support those allegations, detectives sought an extensive range of materials: contracts, estimates, invoices, work orders, spreadsheets, receipts, emails, text messages, photographs, videos, financial ledgers, QuickBooks files, and all digital devices or cloud accounts associated with Diamond K — including Kuykendall’s personal cellphone.
Less than twenty minutes later, a second warrant was signed targeting a separate business arrangement involving Nuway Construction, LLC and an 86-year-old Navy veteran identified as the alleged victim in the dismissed criminal case.
That affidavit relied on specific financial figures. Investigators asserted that a nearly $4 million home included an 18 percent builder markup — producing a projected $720,000 builder fee — and that the veteran’s contractual share, twelve percent, amounted to approximately $86,000. The affidavit alleged Kuykendall improperly used the veteran’s contractor license, withheld profit shares, misappropriated builder fees, and financially exploited a vulnerable adult.
Detectives requested tax records, internal audits, profit-and-loss statements, banking records, ledgers, contracts, invoices, QuickBooks files, and all electronic devices or cloud accounts containing financial data related to Nuway and affiliated entities.
A Parallel Civil Case Tells a Different Story
While the warrants framed the allegations as a unified, multi-year criminal scheme, a related civil case examined conduct inside the company during the same general time period and reached a different set of findings.
That civil matter resulted in a preliminary injunction ruling following five days of evidentiary hearings in Fifth District Court, during which the court heard testimony from 19 witnesses — including Diamond K customers whose projects appear to correspond to homeowner projects identified by initials in the criminal search warrants, but which cannot be conclusively matched because the warrants identify homeowners only by initials.
In its findings, the court addressed conduct occurring inside the company during the same period described in the criminal affidavits attached to the warrants. The court found that two management-level employees, while still employed by Diamond K, accessed and downloaded customer lists and project files from company computers and deleted folders containing documents and emails.
The court further found that permission changes had been made that restricted access to company records — including restricting access from others at Diamond K, and from Kuykendall himself.
After resigning, the employees reportedly refused to provide passwords necessary for the company to access its own records. One employee admitted to factory-resetting company-issued iPads — deleting all data — while “knowing litigation was pending”. The court also found that funds were wired from company accounts after employment ended based on representations that authorization had been given.
Based on that testimony and evidence, the court concluded the conduct constituted breaches of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and conversion of company property.
“Lozano’s and Carter’s actions are the actual and proximate cause of Diamond K’s harm. The court concludes that the evidence clearly shows that Defendants used the information wrongly taken and the misrepresentations wrongly made to steal Diamond K’s business. Customers terminated their contracts with the Company because of Lozano’s and Carter’s breaches of duty. Customers signed up with White Rock where Lozano and Carter misused Diamond K’s confidential business information and other property and assets to service Diamond K’s customers. These damages are irreparable and have severely jeopardized Diamond K’s business going forward.”
— Judge Meb W. Anderson,
Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling
Conclusions of Law ¶7, p.17
Notably, the ruling did not characterize customers as fraud victims, did not quantify financial losses attributable to Kuykendall, and did not mirror the five-year criminal enterprise alleged in the search warrants that led to the seizure of more than 20 boxes of evidence.
Missing Records, Narrower Charges
Despite the breadth of allegations outlined in the warrants, the criminal charges that followed were significantly narrower.
The warrants asserted probable cause for seven categories of crimes — including theft by deception, communications fraud, deceptive business practices, and participation in a criminal enterprise — all premised on the existence of extensive financial records investigators said would demonstrate inflated invoices, misappropriated funds, falsified records, and coordinated fraud.
Yet as the case progressed, those underlying financial records were never produced in discovery, never provided to Washington County prosecutors after Iron County recused itself, and never tested in court before the case was dismissed.
In a prior interview, Iron County Attorney Chad Dotson told The Zion Times (TZT) his office never received the financial records described in the warrants.
“Our office turned over all reports and documents we had in our possession at the time the case was sent to the Washington County Attorney’s Office,” Dotson said.
During execution of the warrants, investigators seized computers, business records, and accounting materials. The specific financial documents referenced in the affidavits, however, were not among the materials provided to the defense or to Washington County prosecutors.
When asked why those records were missing, Dotson said investigators were still processing evidence when the case was transferred.
“The investigation was still ongoing,” he said. “It is not uncommon to get additional evidence as the investigation progresses.”
When asked why financial-crime charges were filed before the financial records supporting those allegations were received, Dotson said, “I can’t speak to that.”
Dotson also did not explain how investigators derived the 18 percent markup, the $720,000 builder-fee calculation, or the $86,000 entitlement cited in the probable cause affidavit.
Disrupted Records and an Incomplete Picture
After Iron County recused itself, Washington County prosecutors were assigned to the case. According to defense counsel, the only financial records available to Washington County were those produced by the defense, which reflected that the business had operated at a loss.
Those records consisted of tax and financial filings from 2022, 2023, and 2024 that had not yet been completed or filed at the time Washington County received the case, as civil litigation involving Diamond K was still ongoing.
Due to the ongoing civil litigation and employee conduct addressed by the court, Diamond K’s access to its own business and accounting records were reportedly materially disrupted, making company access to project files, internal records, and digital accounts inaccessible to finalize the tax filings. That disruption was addressed in the civil proceedings and coincided with the same general time period as the criminal investigation reflected in the search warrants.
Where Is the Evidence Now?
Prior to Iron County’s recusal, prosecutors and law-enforcement officials publicly described the investigation as expansive and ongoing.
“This is just the top of the pile,” Iron County Deputy Prosecutor Sam Woodall told a local news outlet at the time. “There’s a staggering amount of documentation.”
Yet when defense counsel later sought the return of seized items following the dismissal of the criminal case, Washington County Deputy Attorney James Weeks declined, stating that the evidence had been sent “to another agency to be screened for charges.” Weeks did not identify which agency was conducting that review.
Iron County Attorney Chad Dotson separately told TZT that his office does not know which agency Washington County referenced as screening the case or where the seized evidence is currently being held. Dotson stated that Iron County transferred its materials at the time of the conflict referral and has not been involved in subsequent screening decisions since.
Because Washington County indicated that an outside agency was reviewing the matter, TZT contacted the Utah Attorney General’s Office to determine whether the seized evidence had been transferred to state authorities.
During the initial call, a staff member stated that the Attorney General’s Office did not have custody of the evidence and characterized the matter as civil in nature. After clarification that the inquiry concerned physical and digital evidence seized pursuant to criminal search warrants, the call was transferred to the Attorney General’s communications office. As of publication, no response has been received.
As a result, it remains unclear which entity currently holds the seized materials, what documents were included in the referral, and whether the financial records referenced in the warrants were ever reviewed by the unidentified screening agency or by Iron County before recusing itself from the case.
That lack of clarity carries legal significance. If seized or missing records contain information favorable to the defense — such as evidence of operating losses, lack of profit, or absence of personal gain — their continued absence could implicate disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland.
The unresolved status of those materials raises questions about whether charging decisions and subsequent referrals were made based on a complete evidentiary record.
GRAMA Requests Raise Additional Questions
After the criminal case was dismissed, TZT submitted a GRAMA request to the Iron County Attorney’s Office (ICAO) seeking transcripts of recorded interviews conducted during the Kuykendall investigation. The interview transcripts were sought following correspondence from Kuykendall’s defense counsel to the ICAO that raised concerns about statements made by the lead investigator during recorded interviews, which defense counsel argued were relevant to evaluating the conduct and scope of the investigation.
In response, the ICAO stated that records in its possession related to the investigation are limited to police reports, which it said would be redacted and produced for a fee. The office estimated a preparation cost of $50 to $100 and required a deposit before initiating work. The County further advised that any other materials related to the investigation should be requested from the Iron County Sheriff’s Office as the custodian of those records.
In response,TZT submitted a formal request for a public-interest fee waiver under GRAMA, citing the records’ relevance to news reporting and public oversight of a criminal investigation conducted by county authorities. The request stated that the records were not sought for commercial use and that disclosure would primarily benefit the public.
The ICAO declined to waive the fees, citing Utah Code § 63G-2-203(1)(a), which authorizes agencies to charge fees. The response did not reference GRAMA’s fee-waiver subsections or provide a public-interest analysis explaining the basis for denying the waiver. After the denial was challenged, the office offered to reduce the fee but did not issue a revised denial or provide the analysis required under GRAMA.
During a meeting with TZT regarding the denial of the fee waiver, Dotson stated that his office was not required to provide a justification for denying a fee waiver. However, GRAMA guidance issued by the Utah Division of Archives and Records Service states that a governmental entity cannot simply deny a fee waiver without explanation and that a denial of a fee waiver is appealable in the same manner as a denial of access to records. The guidance explains that “[b]ecause GRAMA provides for waivers, a governmental entity cannot simply state that it will never grant fee waivers,” and that “[i]f a person is denied a fee waiver, that denial can be appealed in the same manner as a denial of public records access.” Utah Code § 63G-2-203(6)(a).
Records Access Essentials for
Government Employees
Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) Certification Training
Consistent with that guidance, the Utah State Records Committee has repeatedly held that fee-waiver denials must be treated the same as denials of access to records and must comply with GRAMA’s denial-notice requirements. Under Utah Code § 63G-2-205, a denial must include a description of the record or records at issue, citation to the specific statutory provision relied upon, notice of the right to appeal, the applicable deadline for filing an appeal, and identification of the governmental entity’s chief administrative officer. In Brady Eames v. Utah School and Institutional Trust Fund Office, the Committee applied § 63G-2-203(6)(a) and ruled that a fee-waiver denial is subject to the same appeal process as a denial of records access. (SRC Case No. 24-34, May 20, 2024.)
Prior to TZT’s publication of its second report on the Kuykendall matter, the ICAO had not assessed GRAMA fees in response to TZT’s reporting-related records requests, nor had TZT previously been required to submit a fee-waiver request to obtain records for news reporting. In other investigations — including unrelated criminal matters — the County previously provided lengthy investigative reports, in some cases totaling dozens of pages, without charging fees or requiring deposits. Fees, a deposit requirement, and the denial of a public-interest waiver were imposed only after TZT’s subsequent reporting on the Kuykendall case, representing a marked change in how the County handled TZT’s GRAMA requests related to this investigation. The County has not indicated whether this change reflects a broader shift in its handling of GRAMA requests or is limited to the Kuykendall matter.
The questions raised by the unsealed warrants, missing records, and unresolved custody of evidence remain unanswered.
JUSTICE FOR DIAMOND K: JUDGE RULES KUYKENDALL WAS BETRAYED FROM WITHIN – The Zion Times
SOURCES:
Records Access Essentials for Government Employees
State Records Committee Appeal Decision | Utah Division of Archives and Records Service
Leave a Reply