Lake v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-09-0036-PR.
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Writing for the Court | Bales |
Citation | 222 Ariz. 547,218 P.3d 1004 |
Docket Number | No. CV-09-0036-PR. |
Decision Date | 29 October 2009 |
Parties | David LAKE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; Frank Fairbanks, in his official capacity; Mario Paniagua, in his official capacity; Jack Harris, in his official capacity, Defendants/Appellees. |
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; Frank Fairbanks, in his official capacity; Mario Paniagua, in his official capacity; Jack Harris, in his official capacity, Defendants/Appellees.
[218 P.3d 1005]
Yen Pilch Komadina & Flemming, P.C., by Caroline A. Pilch Neil Landeen, Phoenix, Attorneys for David Lake.
Gary Verburg, Phoenix City Attorney by Sandra Hunter, Assistant City Attorney, Phoenix, Attorney for City of Phoenix, Frank Fairbanks, Mario Paniagua, and Jack Harris.
Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Paula S. Bickett, Chief Counsel Civil Appeals Section, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of Arizona.
Perkins Coie Brown & Bain P.A. by Daniel C. Barr K. McKay Worthington, Christopher M. Schultz, Elizabeth J. Kruschek, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc., Society of Professional Journalists, and Arizona Newspapers Association.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP By David J. Bodney Peter S. Kozinets Chris Moeser, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae The Associated Press, Gannett Co., Inc., The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and The E.W. Scripps Company.
League of Arizona Cities and Towns by David R. Merkel, General Counsel, Tempe, Attorney for Amicus Curiae League of Arizona Cities and Towns.
BALES, Justice.
¶ 1 Arizona law provides that "[p]ublic records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours." Ariz.Rev.Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 39-121 (2001). The City of Phoenix denied a public records request for metadata in the electronic version of a public record. We today hold that if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.
¶ 2 David Lake, a Phoenix police officer, filed an administrative complaint and federal lawsuit alleging employment discrimination by the City of Phoenix. He also submitted a public records request to the City, seeking notes kept by his supervisor, Lt. Robert Conrad, documenting Lake's work performance. After reviewing paper copies of Conrad's notes, Lake suspected that they had been backdated when prepared on a computer. Lake then requested "`meta data' or specific file information contained inside ... [Conrad's notes] file," including "the TRUE creation date, the access date, the access dates for each time it was accessed, including who accessed the file as well as print dates etc."1 The City denied the request, contending that metadata is not a public record under Mathews v. Pyle, 75 Ariz. 76, 251 P.2d 893 (1952).
¶ 3 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.02, Lake filed a special action in the superior court. He alleged that the City was "intentionally and purposely delaying the production of certain public records" until they could be destroyed under records retention laws. After a hearing, the superior court issued an order denying jurisdiction and relief. Lake timely appealed.
¶ 4 The court of appeals reversed in part as to other requests that are not the subject of this opinion, but affirmed the superior court's denial of production of the metadata embedded in Conrad's notes. Lake v. City of Phoenix, 220 Ariz. 472, 207 P.3d 725 (App. 2009). Noting that Arizona statutes do not define the term "public record," the court of appeals concluded that metadata is not embraced by the common law definition of public
records in Mathews.2 Id. at 477-78 ¶¶ 12-15, 207 P.3d at 730-31. The court also found that Arizona's statutory scheme distinguishes metadata "records" from "public records." Id. at 479-80 ¶¶ 18-20, 207 P.3d at 732-33. The court noted that "[t]he legislature ha[d] broadly defined a `record' but ha[d] chosen not to define a `public record,'" instead "deferr[ing] to the courts on this issue." Id. at 479-80 ¶ 20, 207 P.3d at 732-33. The court observed that an "enormous quantity of records" is created daily in Arizona but not all are public records. Id. at 480 ¶ 22, 207 P.3d at 733. Absent further legislative direction, the court concluded that a public records request does not require production of metadata. Id. at 480-81 ¶ 22, 207 P.3d at 733-34.
¶ 5 Judge Norris dissented in part, arguing that the court had erred in focusing on whether the metadata, viewed in isolation, fit within the definition of a public record. Id. at 485-86 ¶ 45, 207 P.3d at 738-39. The key issue, in her view, was whether the electronic version of the document including the metadata is a public record. Id. at 486 ¶ 45, 207 P.3d at 739. She noted that metadata is not an "electronic orphan," but is instead part of the requested electronic document. Id. at 487 ¶ 53, 207 P.3d at 740. Because the City never argued that Conrad's notes were not a public record, Judge Norris found that "[w]hen ... [an] electronically created document is a public record, then so too is its metadata." Id.
¶ 6 We granted review to address a recurring issue of statewide importance. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24 (2003).
¶ 7 Arizona's public records law serves to "open government activity to public scrutiny." Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1, 4 ¶ 11, 156 P.3d 418, 421 (2007); see also Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan, 201 Ariz. 344, 351 ¶ 33, 35 P.3d 105, 112 (App. 2001) ("The core purpose of the public records law is to allow the public access to official records and other government information so that the public may monitor the performance of government officials and their employees.") (citation omitted). A document's status as a public record is a question of law, which we review de novo. Griffis, 215 Ariz. at 3 ¶ 7, 156 P.3d at 420.
¶ 8 Consistent with the goal of openness in government, "Arizona law defines `public records' broadly and creates a presumption requiring the disclosure of public documents." Id. at 4 ¶ 8, 156 P.3d at 421. The public records law, however, does not mandate disclosure of every document held by a public entity. Only documents with a "substantial nexus" to government activities qualify as public records, and the nature and purpose of a document determine whether it is a public record. Id. at 4 ¶ 10, 156 P.3d at 421; see also Salt River Pima-Maricopa...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowling v. Office of Open Records, No. 936 C.D. 2009.
...Requester's argument PEMA violated the Law by failing to produce the public records in the format requested. See Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004...
-
Attorney Gen. v. Dist. Attorney for the Plymouth Dist., SJC-12722
...Union of Ariz., 240 Ariz. at 148, 377 P.3d 339, quoting Lake v. Phoenix, 220 Ariz. 472, 481, 207 P.3d 725 (Ct. App.), rev'd in part, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009).Here, the requested information already exists in the district attorneys' databases, which contain certain data fields for......
-
Lunney v. State, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0457
...court noted "an agency need not create a record in order to respond to a public records request." See Lake v. City of Phoenix , 222 Ariz. 547, 551, ¶ 15, 218 P.3d 1004, 1008 (2009). The superior court also ruled if the State created documents to respond to some of the Lunneys' req......
-
Fann v. Kemp, 1 CA-SA 21-0216
...law broadly defines public records, creating a presumption that requires disclosure of public documents. Lake v. City of Phoenix , 222 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 8, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009) ; see also 505 P.3d 307 Carlson v. Pima County , 141 Ariz. 487, 491, 687 P.2d 1242 (1984) ; Phoenix Newspapers, In......
-
Bowling v. Office of Open Records, No. 936 C.D. 2009.
...Requester's argument PEMA violated the Law by failing to produce the public records in the format requested. See Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004...
-
Attorney Gen. v. Dist. Attorney for the Plymouth Dist., SJC-12722
...Union of Ariz., 240 Ariz. at 148, 377 P.3d 339, quoting Lake v. Phoenix, 220 Ariz. 472, 481, 207 P.3d 725 (Ct. App.), rev'd in part, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009).Here, the requested information already exists in the district attorneys' databases, which contain certain data fields for......
-
Lunney v. State, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0457
...court noted "an agency need not create a record in order to respond to a public records request." See Lake v. City of Phoenix , 222 Ariz. 547, 551, ¶ 15, 218 P.3d 1004, 1008 (2009). The superior court also ruled if the State created documents to respond to some of the Lunneys' req......
-
Fann v. Kemp, 1 CA-SA 21-0216
...law broadly defines public records, creating a presumption that requires disclosure of public documents. Lake v. City of Phoenix , 222 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 8, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009) ; see also 505 P.3d 307 Carlson v. Pima County , 141 Ariz. 487, 491, 687 P.2d 1242 (1984) ; Phoenix Newspapers, In......
-
State and Local Environmental Information Access
..., https://www.azag.gov/ sgo (last visited Dec. 18, 2016). 36. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §38-431.07 (West 2016). 37. Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009). 236 Environmental Information: Research, Access & Environmental Decisionmaking Arkansas 38 Arkansas Open Meetings......