Judicial Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix
228 Ariz. 393
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Phoenix Police Department detail protects Mayor Phil Gordon with a four-officer unit daily.
- From Jan 2007 to Oct 2009, the Detail kept two records: Annotated Calendar and handwritten Unscheduled Worksheets.
- Worksheets listed times, locations, and officer badge numbers for unscheduled events; many involved the Mayor’s personal activities.
- In Dec 2009 Judicial Watch requested all activity logs; Annotated Calendar released, Worksheets withheld for security, confidentiality, and deliberative privilege reasons.
- A 2010 superior court hearing led to in camera review of January-February 2008 Worksheets; court deemed Worksheets public records but weighed privacy/security interests.
- Court found redaction of security-related/confidential information potentially feasible but concluded redaction was not necessary or feasible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redacted Worksheets must be produced | Judicial Watch: redaction feasible; other produced docs exist. | City: redaction would be duplicative or unduly burdensome | Redaction required; produce redacted Worksheets |
| Whether Mayor’s privacy interests overcome disclosure presumption | Public records interest outweighs privacy in this case | Mayor’s privacy should prevail for personal entries | Mayor’s privacy does not overcome presumption; inspection allowed |
| Adequacy of City’s showing of specific harms from disclosure | City failed to show specific harm from disclosure of particular entries | City argued security/confidentiality risks in general terms | City did not prove specific harms; general assertions insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffis v. Pinal Cnty., 215 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2007) (public-records test and balancing presumption)
- KPNX-TV v. Superior Court, 183 Ariz. 589 (App. 1995) (redaction and alternative inspection mechanisms)
- A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Dep’t, 202 Ariz. 184 (Ariz. 2002) (feasibility of alternative inspection and redaction relevance)
- London v. Broderick, 206 Ariz. 490 (Ariz. 2003) (burden-balancing and government disclosure obligations)
- Cox Ariz. Publ’ns, Inc. v. Collins, 852 P.2d 1194 (Ariz. 1993) (need specific harm demonstration; global generalities insufficient)
- Arpaio v. Davis, 210 P.3d 1287 (Ariz. App. 2009) (burden on government to justify withholding records)