439 P.3d 1210
Ariz. Ct. App.2019Background
- Paradigm requested valuation-related public records from the Pima County Assessor in Feb 2014; the Assessor initially pointed to its public website but later produced files and a hard drive containing source code and databases.
- The trial court issued an April 2014 order requiring production in the media/format maintained, which the court later acknowledged significantly expanded Paradigm’s original request.
- The Assessor produced large volumes of data over time, updated its public website, and a special master found the Assessor acted in good faith and that by mid-2015 most required data were available publicly, with some disputed items remaining (e.g., MAS source code until 2017).
- The trial court awarded Paradigm $148,557 in attorney fees and costs, finding Paradigm had "substantially prevailed" through May 2015 under A.R.S. § 39-121.02(B).
- The Assessor appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied the statutory "substantially prevailed" standard by failing to limit fees to litigation necessary to compel records within the scope of the original request and by not accounting for when the Assessor ceased acting adversarially.
- The appellate court vacated the fee award and remanded, instructing the trial court to (1) determine when the Assessor complied with Paradigm’s original request and when production exceeded that scope, and (2) determine when the Assessor ceased acting as an adversary so fees should stop accruing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Paradigm) | Defendant's Argument (Assessor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paradigm "substantially prevailed" under § 39-121.02(B) | Paradigm: any litigated disclosure obtained "but for" the suit means complete success and fees for all incurred work. | Assessor: "substantially prevailed" must be limited to litigation necessary to compel records within the original request. | Remanded: fee entitlement limited to (a) work necessary to obtain records within the original request and (b) the period the agency acted adversarially; trial court must reassess. |
| Relevance of the scope of the original records request | Paradigm: court-ordered expansion was proper and fees should follow the relief obtained. | Assessor: litigation cannot be used to obtain records beyond an unmade extra-judicial request; fees should not cover work compelling expanded materials. | Held: courts must consider whether litigation expanded the original request; fees tied to relief within original request unless new request properly pursued. |
| Effect of agency cooperation on fee awards | Paradigm: securing information and clarifying public availability furthers statutory purpose and supports fees. | Assessor: cooperative, good-faith production undermines the notion of an adversarial victory and limits fee entitlement. | Held: agency cooperation/adversarial role is critical; fees may be limited to periods the agency opposed disclosure. |
| Award of appellate fees | Paradigm: seeks fees on appeal under § 39-121.02(B). | Assessor: opposes. | Held: Paradigm is not prevailing on appeal; appellate fee request denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammoudeh v. Jada, 222 Ariz. 570 (App. 2009) (appellate standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to uphold trial court)
- Cornman Tweedy 560, LLC v. City of Casa Grande, 213 Ariz. 1 (App. 2006) (statutory interpretation—give effect to legislative intent)
- Democratic Party of Pima Cty. v. Ford, 228 Ariz. 545 (App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review of fee awards and consideration of collateral disputes)
- Arpaio v. Citizen Publ’g Co., 221 Ariz. 130 (App. 2008) (party who engenders dispute may be held responsible for fees if acting to prevent disclosure)
- Hodai v. City of Tucson, 239 Ariz. 34 (App. 2016) (both finding substantial prevailing party and awarding fees are discretionary)
- Cox v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 601 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (FOIA causal-nexus test: necessity of suit and agency good-faith search relevant to fee awards)