Arizona Public Records Act: Scope of Required Disclosure/Statute of Limitations 

Abraham v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 2 CA-CV 2024-0073 (App. Div. II, January 6, 2025) https://www.appeals2.az.gov/decisions/CV20240073Opinion.pdf

PUBLIC RECORD REQUESTS ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION OF DISCLOSURE BUT MAY BE DENIED ON CONFIDENTIALITY GROUNDS WHICH REQUIRES DE NOVO REVIEW BY COURT AS TO WHETHER THE DENIAL IS GROUNDED IN CONFIDENTIALITY, PRIVACY OR BEST INTERESTS OF STATE AND IF SO THE REVIEW IS FOR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION/DEMANDS FOR MONEY DAMAGES MUCH FIRST BE BROUGHT IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM/SEEKING SPECIAL ACTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE IS GOVERNED BY ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS/RIGHT TO ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER ARIZONA PUBLIC RECORD LAW REQUIRES PARTY PREVAIL IN ACTION

 Plaintiff made numerous public records requests of the University of Arizona primarily concerning candidates for the vice-provost position. The university produced some records but refused to produce others based upon confidentiality. Ultimately the plaintiff brought this special action seeking production of all his requested documents and claiming some records he requested were destroyed. The trial court ruled the plaintiff was not entitled to any additional records and denied his request for attorneys' fees. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

The court of appeals held:

[T]rial courts reviewing these decisions must apply a two-pronged scope of review. First,

they must consider de novo whether the officer or public body has invoked

a specific, legally sufficient harm that is grounded in confidentiality,

privacy, or the best interests of the state. Second, if the officer or public

body satisfies that requirement, courts must apply abuse-of-discretion

review in evaluating the withholding and redaction decisions for specific

documents.

Plaintiffs' demand for money damages regarding his claim some records requested had been destroyed by the university and others not being timely produced should be brought under A.R.S. § 39-121.02(C) which allows a claim to be made for damages for being “wrongfully denied access to public records,” Here the claim for money damages is barred by virtue of plaintiff's failure to seek relief under that statute and his failure to file a notice of claim. See A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).

Further, a public records request is controlled by a one-year statute of limitations, See A.R.S. § 12-821, and this special action was brought beyond that one-year time limitation as to many of the records he now seeks.

Finally, plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is under A.R.S.39-121.02(B) is denied because he was not the prevailing party .