Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian Blog

Arizona Public Records Law Application to Salt River Project

Posted by Ted A. Schmidt | Jan 09, 2025 | 0 Comments

Sierra Club v. Salt River Agri. Improv. & Power Dist., No. 2 CA-CV 2023-0184 (App. Div. II, January 3, 2025) (J.Gard) https://www.appeals2.az.gov/decisions/CV20230184Opinion.pdf

SALT RIVER PROJECT IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE SUBJECT TO ARIZONA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAW BUT THOSE RECORDS RELATED TO A “COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY” WHICH COULD GIVE A COMPETING ENTITY A “MATERIAL ADVANTAGE' ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS LAW

The Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District [SRP] denied, in part,  the Sierra Club's [Sierra] public records request under A.R.S. §§ 39-101 to 39-171claiming it was not a “public body” subject to Arizona's Public Records Law. Sierra filed this statutory special action to obtain all the records. The Maricopa County Superior court dismissed the action finding that while SRP is a public body subject to the public records law, the specific records withheld were confidential and not subject to production under A.R.S. §§ 39-101 to 39-171. Sierra appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for additional consideration.

SRP is an agricultural improvement district created under Arizona law. See Ariz. Const. art. XIII, § 7; A.R.S. §§ 48-2301 to 48-2475. Sierra is an environmental protection organization. SRP with the help of the Sierra, created an Integrated System Plan addressing resource allocation strategies. When it decided to expand its Coolidge generating station, operating on fossil fuels, Sierra brought opposition and made a public records request of documents related to the proposed expansion. SRP claimed it was not a public entity required to comply with Arizona's Public Records law, that some of the records sought were confidential and yet produced some records to Sierra. Ultimately, Sierra brought this special action seeking to compel production of all the records.

The court of appeals held that SRP is indeed a political subdivision of the state under both the Arizona Constitution and by statute.  As such it is subject to Arizona's Public Records Law. Under this law there is a presumption that disclosure is appropriate. However, A.R.S. § 30-805(B) defeats that presumption by making “records meeting its criteria confidential ‘[n]otwithstanding any other law,' including, necessarily, the Public Records Law.”   

Notwithstanding any other law, records

and proceedings relating to competitive activity,

including trade secrets or privileged or

confidential commercial or financial

information, if disclosure of the information could

give a material advantage to another entity, are not

open to public inspection and may not be made

public except by order of the public power

entity's governing body. The information

protected as confidential under this section is any

information that is similar to the information that

would be confidential under § 40-204 if reported by

a public service corporation to the Arizona

corporation commission.

Application of the confidentiality statute requires a factual analysis by the trial court of each record SRP claims is confidential with the goal of determining what in fact “relates to competitive activity” that would give a competitor a “material advantage.”

We affirm the superior court's judgment insofar as it

concluded that the Public Records Law applies to SRP and analyzed

whether the disputed records were confidential under § 30-805(B) before

applying the Public Records Law's presumption in favor of disclosure. We

conclude, however, that the court erred by determining that § 30-805(B)

creates a blanket presumption of confidentiality and dismissing this matter

without conducting a case-specific evaluation whether 1) the records at

issue related to competitive activity and 2) their disclosure could give

another entity a material advantage.

About the Author

Ted A. Schmidt

Ted's early career as a trial attorney began on the other side of the fence, in the offices of a major insurance defense firm. It was there that Ted acquired the experience, the skills and the special insight into defense strategy that have served him so well in the field of personal injury law. Notable among his successful verdicts was the landmark Sparks vs. Republic National Life Insurance Company case, a $4.5 million award to Ted's client. To this day, it is the defining case for insurance bad faith, and yet it is only one of several other multi-million dollar jury judgments won by Ted during his career. He is certified by the State Bar of Arizona as a specialist in "wrongful death and bodily injury litigation".

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Our team works together - for you!

Our award-winning lawyers are backed by a talented, caring team of legal professionals, paralegals, bilingual assistants, notaries, and others - all dedicated to you, your case, and the compensation you deserve.

No fees and no costs until we win.

As such we always have your case and your best interest in mind. When you win, we win too by providing the best legal care possible.

Thorough investigation and preparation.

We tirelessly and thoughtfully prepare every case we represent as though it was going to trial. This lets insurance companies know that we are a force to be reckoned with. As such, we settle successfully 98% of the time.