Woodward v. Az Corp. Comm., 1 CA-CV 16-0695

In Dec. 2014 Woodward requested public records from the Arizona Corporation Commission relating to a state "smart" meter study; the Commission produced 750+ documents with many redactions.
Woodward sued in superior court under A.R.S. § 39-121.02 to compel production of withheld or "secreted" records and asked for in camera review.
The Commission provided an unredacted compact disc to the superior court for review; the court ordered the clerk to mail the disc to Woodward and simultaneously ordered the parties not to distribute the records to third parties without court permission.
The court later clarified that Woodward bore the burden to rebut privilege and ordered him to respond to the Commission’s objections; Woodward filed a 36‑page response challenging claimed privileges and nondisclosure.
Before the court ruled on the merits, the Commission moved to dismiss as moot, and the superior court granted the motion and reaffirmed the no-distribution restriction; Woodward appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court’s order barring Woodward from disclosing the unredacted records is an unconstitutional prior restraint	Woodward: the court’s order is a prior restraint on his First Amendment/public‑records rights and lacks required findings	Commission: the no‑distribution order protects nonpublic records and is justified; Woodward waived the issue by not timely objecting	Court: the order is a prior restraint carrying a heavy presumption of invalidity; the court made no findings to justify it, so the prohibition was improper
Whether the superior court erred by dismissing Woodward’s complaint as moot without resolving his claim that the Commission “secreted” records	Woodward: complaint sufficiently alleged the agency failed to disclose responsive public records; dismissal prevented adjudication of that claim	Commission: because Woodward saw unredacted documents and disclosed some content, there was no further benefit to litigation; dismissal appropriate	Court: dismissal was error; whether the Commission adequately searched/produced records is a factual question for the superior court to decide on the merits

Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2007) (presumption favoring disclosure; in camera review procedures and burden rules)
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio, 217 Ariz. 533 (App. 2008) (agency may rely on affidavits showing reasonable search for responsive records)
Hodai v. City of Tucson, 239 Ariz. 34 (App. 2016) (agency must demonstrate search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (Ariz. 2012) (appellate standard of review for dismissal of complaint)
Nash v. Nash, 232 Ariz. 473 (App. 2013) (prior restraints are highly disfavored and require narrow tailoring)
Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993) (defining prior restraint)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (prior restraint and public‑interest considerations)
Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (injunctions should not burden more speech than necessary)
Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (standards for restrictions on speech)