IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF UTAH
IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY
JENNIFER RUTH KAMP,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN DEHLIN,
Respondent.
ORDER
Case No. 230901037
Judge Coral Sanchez
Pending before the Court is Jennifer Ruth Kamp’s ex-parte civil temporary
stalking injunction against John Dehlin. The Court has reviewed all of the pleadings and
has considered the admitted evidence and arguments of the parties at an evidentiary
hearing held on March 7, 2023 at 9:00am related to an ex-parte temporary civil stalking
injunction issued on February 14, 2023. For the reasons stated below, the ex-parte
temporary civil stalking injunction is hereby REVOKED.
Findings of Fact
1. Jennifer Ruth Kamp (“Petitioner”) began employment as the Director of
Operations at the Open Stories Foundation (“Open Stories Foundation”) on February 6, 2023.
2. John Dehlin (“Respondent”) is the registered agent of OFS and a member of the
Open Stories Foundation Board of Directors (“Board”).
3. Open Stories Foundation conducted a popular podcast called “Mormon Stories.” Respondent is the
host of the podcast and has a large following. Typically, Respondent hosted the
podcasts. Each podcast typically had the participation of a co-host to aid
Respondent conduct the podcast. The co-host varied from podcast to podcast.
Page 2 of 2
4. Initially, Petitioner’s job duties were limited to picking up mail and performing
miscellaneous office work. Later, Petitioner learned how to do payroll and that
became one of her job duties.
5. A few months after Petitioner started her employment with Open Stories Foundation, Petitioner began
co-hosting podcasts with Respondent. Petitioner was one of several co-hosts.
Some of the podcasts were live and others were recorded, to be aired at a future
date.
6. Petitioner enjoyed participating in podcasts and was doing a good job in her
podcast co-hosting role.
7. Approximately in June or July, Petitioner participated in a podcast with host
Christine Burton. The podcast was recorded. The podcast was focused on child
sexual abuse. In the podcast, Petitioner told the host that she had personal
stories about abuse. Petitioner believed that the podcast was not supposed to
be broadcast. The podcast was later broadcast.
8. Approximately in June or July, Petitioner and Respondent agreed to have
Petitioner conduct her own podcast with a group of guests. The podcast was
recorded. The podcast had a total of four women participating and was focused
on female body autonomy.
1. During the podcast, Petitioner shared the details of sexual abuse
they experienced as children. The other podcast participants also
shared the details of traumatic events of abuse they experienced.
Page 3 of 2
1. Respondent did not listen to the entire podcast as it was being
recorded, but periodically checked in to make sure that there were
no technical issues with the recording.
9. Petitioner asserts that she never intended the podcast to be aired and only used
it as a practice podcast. However, a week after Petitioner recorded the podcast
focused on female body autonomy, Petitioner sent Respondent a text that
included the podcast on female body autonomy in a list of recorded podcasts that
she suggested should air. Additionally, it is unlikely that a group of participants
would gather together in a podcast setting, and that Respondent and Petitioner
would be concerned about any technical issues with the podcast, if the podcast
was a practice session that would never air.
10.Prior to August 10, 2022, Petitioner and Respondent agreed to have a special
series of podcasts where Petitioner would discuss details of the sexual abuse
she suffered as a child. Petitioner and Respondent planned to approach the
subject in a series of four podcasts.
11.On August 10, 2022, Petitioner, Respondent, and another male hosted a live
podcast about sexual abuse involving the LDS Church and the Boy Scouts of
America. The podcast was also recorded. During the podcast, Respondent
made a statement, to the effect of, “I know this is a topic that it is important to
you” when discussing child sexual abuse. Petitioner was bothered by this and felt
“outed.” After the podcast ended, Petitioner expressed her discomfort to
Respondent. Respondent offered to edit out the part of the recording discussing
Petitioner’s child sexual abuse, but Petitioner said, “no.”
12.On August 22 and 23, 2022, Petitioner did a podcast where she disclosed the
details of the child sexual abuse she suffered. Respondent was the host and
Respondent’s wife was the co-host. The podcast was broken up into four
separate podcasts and all were recorded.
1. Petitioner was allowed to take two days off after the podcast.
Petitioner opted to take one day off and work from home the
second day, which was August 25, 2022.
13.On August 25, 2022, Petitioner was working from home. Respondent contacted
Petitioner to inform her that he needed to meet with her at the office. Petitioner
was upset that she had to go into the office and rearrange her day. When she
and Respondent met, Petitioner and Respondent got into an argument.
14.On August 25, 2022, Petitioner texted Clint Martin and Keri Witbeck, both
members of the Board. Petitioner expressed her concerns about Respondent
asking her to come into the office on a day she was scheduled to work from
home.
15. Mr. Martin and Ms. Witbeck organized a meeting for August 30, 2022 to address
Petitioner’s concerns.
16.Petitioner, Respondent, Mr. Martin, and Ms. Witbeck attended the August 30,
2022 meeting. The meeting was held virtually and recorded. Petitioner spoke for
60% to 70% of the duration of the meeting. During the meeting, Respondent
brought up concerns about Petitioner’s poor job performance and Petitioner’s use
of private information that she had access to in order to support a salary increase
for herself.
Page 5 of 2
17.During the August 30, 2022 meeting, Petitioner asserted that she felt threatened
and scared during the August 25, 2023 meeting because Respondent yelled at
her and was threatening her. Petitioner told Ms. Witbeck and Mr. Martin that
Respondent was aggressive, kept standing up, and made threatening gestures.
Petitioner also told Ms. Witbeck and Mr. Martin that she “loves working with John
[Respondent]” and that she and Respondent make a great team.
18. After the August 30, 2022 meeting, Mr. Martin and Ms. Witbeck were concerned
by Petitioner’s allegations and pulled a video from a camera that captured the
August 25, 2022 meeting between Petitioner and Respondent.
1. In reviewing the video footage, Mr. Martin did not observe
Respondent engage in any threatening behavior. On the contrary,
Mr. Martin observed that Petitioner yelled and engaged in
insubordination. Mr. Martin noted that Respondent remained calm,
in light of Petitioner’s behavior towards Respondent. After
observing the video, Mr. Martin felt that the Petitioner
misrepresented to him what occurred at the August 25, 2023
meeting.
1. In reviewing the video, Ms. Witbeck did not observe Respondent
act aggressively towards Petitioner. Ms. Witbeck concluded that
the video footage contradicted Petitioner’s allegations and felt that
Petitioner misled her.
19. On August 31, 2022, when Petitioner was still employed by Open Stories Foundation, Respondent
texted Petitioner. In his text to Petitioner, Respondent requested to have a
Page 6 of 2
conversation with Petitioner before the Board made a decision about Petitioner’s
employment. Petitioner did not respond to Respondent’s text.
20.On September 2, 2022, the Board terminated Petitioner’s employment with
Open Stories Foundation.
21.On September 10, 2022, Respondent sent a video to Petitioner via text and
email. The contents of the text message and email are identical and both contain
the same video attachment. In his email and text message, Respondent
expresses his desire to reconcile with Petitioner. The video contains a lengthy
message from Respondent to Petitioner where he expressed his wish to
reconcile with Petitioner.
22.On September 11, 2022, Petitioner sent Respondent and the Board a message
asking that Respondent and members of the Board stop all communications with
Petitioner.
23.After receiving Petitioner’s September 11, 2022 request to stop all
communications, Respondent stopped all contact with Petitioner.
24.On January 17, 2023, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Respondent and members
of the Board.
25.On February 7, 2023, Respondent filed a lawsuit against Petitioner.
26.On February 12, 2023, Petitioner, who now has her own podcast, broadcasted a
live recording on her Instagram account. During the broadcast, Petitioner noticed
that Respondent logged on. Respondent, who was attempting to collect
evidence for his lawsuit, logged off as soon as he realized that the video was live
and not a recording.
Page 7 of 2
27.On February 14, 2023, approximately four people at Petitioner’s place of
employment received an email that contained a video of the August 25, 2023
Board meeting and a copy of the complainant in Respondent’s lawsuit. There is
no evidence that Respondent was directly or indirectly involved in sending the
email to Petitioner’s workplace.
28.On February 14, 2023, Petitioner applied for a temporary civil stalking injunction
and the injunction was granted.
29.On February 17, 2023, Respondent filed a request for a hearing to address the
temporary civil stalking injunction.
30.Since her employment was terminated at Open Stories Foundation, Petitioner has publicly discussed
the August 25, 2022 meeting with the Board and her pending lawsuit numerous
times on different podcasts/social media channels.
31.Since her employment was terminated at Open Stories Foundation, Petitioner has publicly discussed
on various social media platforms allegations against Respondent involving
claims of sexual harassment involving other females that Petitioner has no
personal knowledge of.
32.No evidence was presented that Respondent directed a third-party to contact
Petitioner or discuss matters related to Petitioner. Specifically, there is no
evidence that Respondent directed or influenced Radio-Free-Mormon to discuss
any matters related to Petitioner. There is no evidence that Respondent was the
person who leaked the recording of the August 25, 2022 meeting. There is no
evidence that Respondent provided the recording of the August 25, 2022 to
Mormon Discussion Inc. or that Respondent directed them to broadcast the
Page 8 of 2
recording on February 9, 2022. The link to the video is part of a complaint, a
readily accessible public court document, which was filed on February 7, 2023.
See Third District Court case number 230900882, Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.
Conclusions of Law
1. Since Respondent requested a hearing in writing within 10 days of being served
with the ex parte civil stalking injunction, the burden is on the petitioner to show
by a preponderance of the evidence that stalking of Petitioner by Respondent
occurred. See Utah Code Ann. Sec. 78B-7-701(4).
2. The standard that the Court must apply is an “individualized objective standard.”
See Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8, 322 P.3d 728 (2014). The burden is on Petitioner
to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in a
course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person in Petitioner’s
circumstances to suffer emotional distress. See id.
3. In applying this individualized objective standard, it is helpful to look at the
factors identified in Baird v. Baird. Id at ¶ 27. The Court finds the following:
a. Prior to August 25, 2022, Respondent and Petitioner enjoyed a
healthy work relationship. There was no history of abuse between
Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner and Respondent enjoyed a
mutually beneficial relationship–Respondent benefitted from
Petitioner co-hosting podcasts with him because they were popular
with Open Stories Foundation’s audience and Petitioner gained experience and was
encouraged by Respondent to pursue a goal of hosting podcasts
individually. At the August 30, 2022 Board meeting, Petitioner
Page 9 of 2
described to the Board that she and Respondent were a great team
and that she loved working with Respondent.
a. Petitioner was understandably sensitive about the trauma she
endured as a child. Although it was insensitive of Respondent to
disclose that Petitioner was a victim of child sexual abuse during
the August 10, 2022 podcast, Respondent did not disclose the
information in an effort to exploit Petitioner’s vulnerability.
Petitioner had already agreed to do a multi-part podcast with
Respondent detailing her child sexual abuse and had already
recorded a podcast where she insinuated that she was a victim of
child sexual abuse. In reviewing footage of the podcast, the Court
finds that Respondent was attempting to promote the upcoming
podcast about Petitioner’s child sexual abuse rather than exploiting
Petitioner’s vulnerability about her experience as a victim of child
sexual abuse.
a. The alleged stalking occurred via electronic communication. None
of the alleged stalking occurred physically near Petitioner’s home or
her children.
4. The Court finds that the text messages Respondent sent prior to her termination
on September 2, 2022, were work related and geared towards improving the
work relationship between Respondent and Petitioner.
5. Petitioner did not present evidence that directly or indirectly ties Respondent with
any statements or publications made by Radio-Free-Mormon or Mormon
Page 10 of 2
Discussion, Inc. Therefore, these statements or publications are not relevant to
the Court’s determination of whether Respondent engaged in a course of
conduct, pursuant to section 76-5-106.5. See Utah Code. Ann. Sec. 76-5-
106.5(1)(a)(i).
6. Petitioner did not present evidence that directly or indirectly ties Respondent to
the email sent to Respondent’s place of employment on February 14, 2023.
Therefore, the email is not relevant to the Court’s determination of whether
Respondent engaged in a course of conduct, pursuant to section 76-5-106.5.
See Utah Code. Ann. Sec. 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i).
7. The almost identical, but separate text and email messages and video
attachment that Respondent sent Petitioner on September 10, 2023, constitute a
“course of conduct,” as defined by section 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i). See id. Utah’s
stalking statute defines “course of conduct” as “two or more acts directed at or
toward a specific individual” including “acts in which the actor . . . communicates
to or about an individual” directly by any “action, method, device or means[.]”
Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i)(A). By communication directly with
Petitioner twice via an electronic device, Respondent’s conduct falls within the
parameters of section 76-5-106.5’s “course of conduct” definition. However, to
violate section 76-5-106.5, an actor must intentionally or knowingly engage in a
“course of conduct directed at a specific individual” AND the actor must know or
should know that “the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person” to
fear for the individual’s own safety or the safety of a third individual” or “to suffer
other emotional distress[.]” Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-106.5(2)(a).
