American Civil Liberties Union v. Arizona Department of Child Safety
240 Ariz. 142
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- ACLU submitted multiple public-records requests (May 2013, Jan. 28 & Jan. 31, 2014) seeking case-level and aggregated statistical information from the Arizona child-welfare agency’s electronic case management system, CHILDS.
- DES (later DCS) produced records responsive to many items but did not produce responses to numerous outstanding items that required tallies/compilations of data.
- ACLU filed a special action under Arizona public-records statutes seeking production, an index of withheld records, and attorneys’ fees.
- The superior court held the agency need not "create" new records or analyze data to compile statistics and declined to order production of the outstanding compiled-tally requests.
- On appeal, the court addressed whether CHILDS is itself a public record, whether the agency must query/search its electronic database to retrieve responsive records, whether the agency must compile aggregate data, and whether the agency promptly furnished post-litigation records and whether ACLU is entitled to fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an agency-maintained electronic database (CHILDS) a public record? | CHILDS (records & data) are public records and must be searched/produced. | Agency implicitly argued production would require creation/compilation; did not deny CHILDS is a record for operational use. | CHILDS is a public record; agency must query/search it to identify and produce responsive records. |
| Must the agency create/tally/compile aggregate statistics from raw data on request? | ACLU: yes — must provide requested statistics/aggregates. | DCS: not required to create new records or run analyses/programs to compile aggregates. | Agency is not required to create new records by tallying or compiling previously untallied information; searching existing records is required but creating aggregate compilations is not. |
| If inspection is infeasible due to confidentiality, must agency instead compile data for requester? | ACLU: because CHILDS contains confidential fields, inspection may be infeasible, so agency must provide compiled public data. | DCS: no evidence it could not redact or that ACLU actually requested inspection; no duty to create compilations. | Rejected ACLU’s argument; record lacked evidence that inspection was impossible or that ACLU requested CHILDS inspection. Agency’s nondisclosure theory was unsupported. |
| Were post-litigation productions prompt and is ACLU entitled to fees? | ACLU: DCS delayed and should have promptly furnished records; thus ACLU substantially prevailed and is entitled to fees. | DCS: delay was excusable given circumstances; production did not require creation of new records. | Superior court’s denial of fees reversed in part; remanded to determine whether post-litigation records were produced promptly and whether ACLU substantially prevailed (fees to be reconsidered). |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffis v. Pinal Cty., 215 Ariz. 1 (discusses broad public-records definition and presumption of disclosure)
- Lake v. City of Phoenix (Lake I), 220 Ariz. 472 (agency must produce records stored in its chosen electronic database)
- Lake v. City of Phoenix (Lake II), 222 Ariz. 547 (electronic records and metadata subject to disclosure)
- Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio, 217 Ariz. 533 (agency must make good-faith effort and be prompt in searching for responsive records)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 228 Ariz. 393 (public-records statute does not require creation of new document like an index)
- Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487 (statutory mandate to make and maintain records necessary to provide knowledge of official activities)
- London v. Broderick, 206 Ariz. 490 (disclosure benefits may yield to burdens; balance of interests)
- National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency, 898 F.Supp.2d 233 (D.D.C. 2012) (distinguishes searching existing data from creating aggregate compilations under FOIA)