Cyber Ninjas v. Hon. Hannah, 1 CA-SA 21-0173

The Arizona Senate hired Cyber Ninjas, a private contractor, to conduct an audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 election; Cyber Ninjas subcontracted portions of the work.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (PNI, publisher of the Arizona Republic) requested audit-related documents under Arizona’s Public Records Law (PRL); Cyber Ninjas did not produce records.
PNI filed a statutory special action seeking disclosure and named Cyber Ninjas and Senate officials; the superior court denied Cyber Ninjas’ motion to dismiss and ordered production under A.R.S. § 39-121.02.
Cyber Ninjas petitioned this court for special action relief and obtained a temporary stay; this Court accepted jurisdiction over pure legal issues of statewide importance.
The key legal questions focused on whether Cyber Ninjas qualifies as a PRL “officer” or “public body,” whether it is a “custodian” of public records obliged to produce them, and whether joinder of Cyber Ninjas in the special action was proper.
The Court reaffirmed that audit records are public even when held by a third party contractor and held Cyber Ninjas (as sole custodian) must furnish records; the Court denied Cyber Ninjas’ requested relief and awarded PNI costs and fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (PNI)	Defendant's Argument (Cyber Ninjas)	Held
Whether special action jurisdiction is appropriate	Acceptable because no adequate appellate remedy and issues are pure law/statewide importance	Not disputed as to appropriateness here	Court accepted special action jurisdiction
Whether Cyber Ninjas is an "officer" or "public body" under the PRL	Cyber Ninjas should be treated as subject to PRL as an entity performing public functions with public funds	Cyber Ninjas is private and therefore not an "officer" or "public body" under statutory definitions	Court held Cyber Ninjas is not an "officer" or "public body" under A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)
Whether Cyber Ninjas is a "custodian" required to produce requested public records	PNI: Cyber Ninjas is the sole custodian of audit records and must promptly furnish them under the PRL	Cyber Ninjas: As a private contractor it is not subject to PRL obligations	Court held Cyber Ninjas is a custodian for audit records in its possession and must produce them under A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D)
Whether joinder of Cyber Ninjas in the special action was proper	PNI: Cyber Ninjas must be joined because the Senate lacks custody and the custodian is necessary for complete relief	Cyber Ninjas: Joinder improper because it is private and not a PRL defendant	Court held joinder was proper; custodian must be joined when it alone holds public records needed to provide relief

Sw. Gas Corp. v. Irwin, 229 Ariz. 198 (App. 2012) (special-action jurisdiction and adequacy of appeal remedies)
McHale v. McHale, 210 Ariz. 194 (App. 2005) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist. 48 of Maricopa Cnty. v. KPNX Broad. Co., 191 Ariz. 297 (1998) (PRL purpose: public access to government activities)
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547 (App. 2009) (public-records qualification requires a substantial nexus to government activity)
W. Valley View Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 216 Ariz. 225 (App. 2007) (definition and import of custody for records)
Arpaio v. Citizen Publ’g Co., 221 Ariz. 130 (App. 2008) (procedural joinder principles in PRL actions)
Forum Publishing Co. v. City of Fargo, 391 N.W.2d 169 (N.D. 1986) (third-party possession does not exempt documents from open-records laws)