American Civil Liberties Union of Az v. Dcs, 493 P.3d 885

Background

ACLU‑AZ sent multiple public‑records requests to the Department of Child Safety (DCS); DCS produced some documents, then stalled and refused other requests claiming they would require creating new compilations from the CHILDS database.
ACLU‑AZ filed a special action seeking records and attorney fees under A.R.S. § 39‑121.02; DCS produced additional documents after litigation began (post‑litigation documents).
The trial court declined to compel creation of new documents, found DCS failed to promptly provide some CHILDS records, and awarded ACLU‑AZ $239,842.21 in attorney fees and costs as a party that had “substantially prevailed.”
Court of Appeals (ACLU‑AZ I) held CHILDS is a public record but that DCS need not create new compilations; remanded for promptness and fee determinations. On remand (ACLU‑AZ II) the appellate court affirmed promptness but reversed the fee award, holding a party may only “substantially prevail” based on documents actually received and limited § 39‑121.02(B) to special actions.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to define “substantially prevailed” under § 39‑121.02(B) and to resolve whether the statute’s fee remedy is confined to special actions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What does “substantially prevailed” mean under § 39‑121.02(B)?	A party may recover fees based on overall success including legal rulings, not only on documents received.	Substantial prevailing should be measured by documents actually obtained.	A party "substantially prevailed" if, after comprehensive review, it was more successful than not in obtaining requested records, defeating denials, or securing other contested relief.
Is § 39‑121.02(B) limited to fees for special actions under § 39‑121.02(A)?	Fees are available for any action under the public‑records article, not just special actions.	Fees should be limited to special actions as referenced in subsection (A).	§ 39‑121.02(B) applies to any action under the article; not limited to special actions.
Does the appellate ruling that CHILDS is a public record automatically make ACLU‑AZ a prevailing party entitled to fees?	The CHILDS ruling supports prevailing status but fee entitlement requires assessing overall success on contested requests.	Because DCS did not contest CHILDS’ public‑record status or produce more docs as a result, ACLU‑AZ did not substantially prevail.	The CHILDS declaration alone is not dispositive; trial court must examine all contested requests and overall success before awarding fees.
What must the trial court do on remand?	Reevaluate fee entitlement under a broader standard considering all contested pre‑litigation positions and relief obtained.	(DCS) Trial court should not award fees absent clear document production or explicitly prevailing claims.	Remand for trial court to apply the comprehensive “more successful than not” standard to ACLU‑AZ’s contested requests and reconsider fees.

Key Cases Cited

Johnson Utils., L.L.C. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 249 Ariz. 215 (statutory interpretation de novo)
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 234 Ariz. 343 (use of dictionaries when terms undefined)
Ocean W. Contractors, Inc. v. Halec Constr. Co., Inc., 123 Ariz. 470 (partial recovery can constitute success)
Democratic Party of Pima Cnty. v. Ford, 228 Ariz. 545 (trial courts have broad, flexible discretion on fee awards)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (deference to trial court on fee determinations)
Arpaio v. Citizen Publ'g Co., 221 Ariz. 130 (fees under § 39‑121.02(B) not limited to special actions)
LaWall v. Robertson, 237 Ariz. 495 (fees available where custodian sought declaratory relief)
Cong. Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 17 v. Warren, 227 Ariz. 16 (fees awarded in suits involving prospective injunctive relief)
Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 240 Ariz. 193 (plain statutory language guides interpretation)
Hale v. Amphitheater Sch. Dist. No. 10, 192 Ariz. 111 (appellate review of fee awards limited if any reasonable basis exists)