353 P.3d 375
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- R3 Investigations and Christopher Dupont requested electronic prosecutorial records from the Pima County Attorney (LaWall) covering criminal cases since 2002; they stated the requests were for use "as evidence or as research for evidence" in judicial or quasi-judicial actions.
- LaWall produced most records but refused to treat the requests as noncommercial, seeking commercial-purpose disclosures (tax/financial info) and payment under A.R.S. § 39-121.03(A).
- LaWall sued for a declaratory judgment that the requests were commercial and required a statement of commercial purpose and fees; R3 and Dupont moved for summary judgment.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding the statutory exception—use as evidence or research for evidence in an action—applies even if no specific or pending action exists and without requiring admissibility.
- The court also awarded R3 attorney fees; on appeal the appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requests fall within the exception to "commercial purpose" in A.R.S. § 39-121.03(D) | LaWall: exception requires a specific or pending action and that records be or lead to admissible evidence; without that, requests are commercial and fees apply | R3/Dupont: statute's exception is unqualified — does not require a pending action or admissibility; use as research for evidence suffices | Court: Exception applies as written; no requirement of a pending/specific action or judicial admissibility; requests not commercial for fee purposes |
| Whether custodian may require additional information to evaluate noncommercial purpose | LaWall: custodian may and should inquire into the proceeding, use, and admissibility to determine noncommercial status | Defendants: statute removed prior verification requirement; requester need not explain noncommercial use to custodian | Court: Legislature eliminated verification; custodian may not impose inquiry requirements beyond statute |
| Whether records must be admissible to fall within exception | LaWall: exception implies admissibility or at least likelihood to produce admissible evidence | Defendants: admissibility not required; exception covers research that may be used as evidence | Court: Admissibility is not required; exception refers to use as evidence/research generally and legislature's broader reforms show no admissibility prerequisite |
| Entitlement to attorney fees under A.R.S. § 39-121.02(B) | LaWall: case is novel and not a public-access enforcement action; fees inappropriate | R3: prevailing party entitled to fees; award appropriate | Court: Superior court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees; appellate court affirms fee award but denies additional appellate fees while awarding costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Star Publ'g Co. v. Parks, 178 Ariz. 604, 875 P.2d 837 (1993) (interpreting Arizona public-records statutes in commercial-purpose context)
- Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Recorder, 210 Ariz. 393, 111 P.3d 435 (2005) (addressing commercial-purpose definition under public-records law)
- Mathews ex rel. Mathews v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 217 Ariz. 606, 177 P.3d 867 (2008) (principles of statutory interpretation: plain language and legislative intent)