Curtis Goodwin Sullivan Udall & Schwab

PUBLIC RECORDS – AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS

The Pima County Superior Court has ruled against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office in another Public Records lawsuit. In this case, the Sheriff’s Office was required to pay the attorneys’ fees of more than $25,000 in the case of Tucson Citizen v. Joseph Arpaio and Maricopa County, Pima County Superior Court more than $25,000 in attorneys’ fees for failing to promptly respond to a public records request. The request was made in July but the Office did not respond until December.

Specifically, the Tucson Citizen requested that the Sheriff’s Office produce documents relating to a dispute between the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office regarding who should prosecute a racketeering case and claim more than $30 million of assets. The Sheriff’s attorney, Dennis Wilenchik, sent a letter to Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall arguing that Mr. Goddard’s refusal to prosecute the case was improper, and sending the Sheriff’s records to Pima County was an "unlawful exercise of authority, dominion or control over the Sheriff’s files." The Tucson Citizen learned of the dispute and "missives" sent between the parties and requested copies of those letters from the Sheriff’s Office. The Office refused to allow Pima County to turn over the documents, and the Pima County Superior Court ultimately ruled that the Sheriff’s objection was not sufficient and the records were subject to production, and the Tucson Citizen was awarded $25,241 in attorneys’ fees.

This is a reminder that upon receipt of a public records request a public body must (1) be diligent in producing the records requested, (2) promptly contact the requester if there are issues in gathering the requested information and (3) be aware that conduct designed solely to delay production of public records violates the Public Records Law, as illustrated in this case.

THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL OPINION.