Summary
The Supreme Court of Arizona held that when a public entity maintains a public record in electronic format, the electronic version, including embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under Arizona's public records law. The court also held that a superior court generally may not decline jurisdiction over a properly filed special action seeking access to public records. The judgment was vacated in part and remanded.
Holdings
- When a public entity maintains a public record in electronic format, the electronic version of the record, including embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under Arizona's public-records law.
- When a person properly invokes the special-action procedure under A.R.S. § 39-121.02(A) to challenge denial of access to public records, the superior court lacks discretion to deny jurisdiction and must decide the case on its merits.
Questions Presented
- Whether an electronic version of a public record, including embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under Arizona's public-records law.
- Whether the superior court had discretion to deny jurisdiction and relief on a special action brought under A.R.S. § 39-121.02 to challenge denial of access to public records.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (7)
- Mathews v. Pyle, 75 Ariz. 76, 251 P.2d 893 (1952)(followed in part)
- Lake v. City of Phoenix, 220 Ariz. 472, 207 P.3d 725 (App. 2009)(reversed in part and vacated in relevant part)
- Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1, 156 P.3d 418 (2007)(followed)
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan, 201 Ariz. 344, 35 P.3d 105 (App. 2001)(followed)
- Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers, 168 Ariz. 531, 815 P.2d 900 (1991)(followed)
- Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487, 687 P.2d 1242 (1984)(followed)
- Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005)(persuasive analogy)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…