Henry v. Taylor, 267 P.3d 1270

City of Nampa requested prosecutorial services; contract with Canyon County, Bujak, and City executed July 9, 2009 for annual $598,357.88, initial term July 6, 2009–Sept 30, 2009, with later amendments and term extension.
Payment structure advanced from county auditor to directly to the prosecuting attorney; county initially approved but later allowed direct payments to Bujak, creating questions about use of county resources and accounting.
Henry filed public records requests (March–April 2010) seeking ledgers, bank statements, and flow of funds from Nampa to intermediary accounts and to the county, plus related deposits and auditor certificates.
County clerk and treasurer provided some records; prosecutors’ office offered contracts and resolutions but disputed other requested financial records existed or were in custody.
District court dismissed per Derting v. Walker (1987) on the theory records were not public; Bujak resigned, Taylor substituted as CAO; issue on appeal was whether records are public and can be compelled for disclosure.
Idaho Supreme Court held records are public under PRA because they relate to the public’s business and were prepared by a local agency, but production could be denied if the respondents did not prepare/retain the records; remedy limited to the public agency that prepared them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the requested records public records under PRA?	Henry contends records relate to public business and are public records.	Respondents argue records were not prepared or retained by them and thus not public.	Public records; BUT production not required by respondents who did not prepare/retain them.
Can Canyon County or its current prosecutor be compelled to produce records?	Henry sought production from county/prosecutor as custodians of public records.	Records were in custody/private accounts of Bujak; county/prosecutor lacked custody.	No; production required only if the agency prepared/retained the records; current respondents did not prepare/retain them.
May the prevailing party recover costs/attorney fees under PRA?	Henry seeks costs under PRA and related statutes for compelled disclosure.	Costs/fees depend on whether records were prepared by the agency and on frivolous conduct.	No costs/fees awarded against respondents; Bujak not party to appeal; PRA §9-344(2) governs.

Derting v. Walker, 112 Idaho 1055 (1987) (contract to prosecute municipalities may not be part of official duties)
Ward v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., Inc., 150 Idaho 501 (2011) (public records determined by content and circumstances at time of request)
Roe v. Harris, 128 Idaho 569 (1996) (9-344(2) and attorney fees; PRA fee award framework)
Lake CDA Investments, LLC v. Idaho Dept. of Lands, 149 Idaho 274 (2010) (exclusive basis for costs/attorney fees in agency actions under 12-117 vs PRA)
Cowles Publ'g Co. v. Kootenai County Bd. of Comm'rs, 159 P.3d 896 (2007) (definition scope of public records under PRA)