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