Lake v. Phoenix
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DAVID LAKE, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF PHOENIX, a political ) subdivision of the State of ) Arizona; FRANK FAIRBANKS, in his ) official capacity; MARIO ) PANIAGUA, in his official ) capacity; JACK HARRIS, in his ) official capacity, ) ) Defendants/Appellees. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 01/13/2011 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH No. 1 CA-CV 10-0232 DEPARTMENT B Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2006-000835-001 DT DECISION ORDER This appeal has been considered by Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judges Michael J. Brown and John C. Gemmill. David Lake appeals the superior court s denial of his request for an award of attorneys fees. Because we conclude that the superior court did not explain the grounds for its decision, and the record reveals that both the court and the parties may have misunderstood the intended scope of the attorneys fees issue, we suspend the appeal and remand for further proceedings. Lake, a City of Phoenix police officer, submitted several public records requests to the City, seeking a wide variety of records. Believing that his requests were not being produced promptly, or in some cases not at all, Lake filed a special action against the City of Phoenix in superior court pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes 2010). His petition alleged the wrongful denial of twenty-four public records requests. ( A.R.S. ) section 39-121.02 (Supp. The superior court ultimately ruled in favor of the City in 2007. On appeal, Lake challenged the denial of four of his requests and the promptness of five other requests for which the City did ultimately provide the records. Lake v. Phoenix, 220 Ariz. 472, 207 P.3d 725 (App. 2009). City of This court found that the City wrongfully denied three of Lake s requests. Id. at 483, ¶ 38, 207 P.3d at 736. As to the fourth request for the metadata of documents prepared on a computer, we affirmed the denial because we concluded metadata was not a public record under Arizona law. Id. at 481, ¶ 23, 207 P.3d at 734. We then determined that because the City had wrongfully refused three of Lake s requests, it was appropriate to remand to allow the court to determine whether Lake was relating to those three requests. entitled to attorneys fees Id. at 483-84, ¶ 38, 207 P.3d at 736-37. Regarding promptness, we found sufficient evidence to the support superior court s ruling that the City had promptly provided the requested documents and also affirmed the superior court s denial of Lake s costs and attorneys fees for the promptness claims. Id. at 485, ¶ 43, 207 P.3d at 738. 2 Our supreme issue. court accepted review of only the metadata The court vacated that portion of the court of appeals decision, holding that metadata is an inherent part of the underlying document, and is subject to disclosure under public records law. 12-14, 218 Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 550-51, ¶¶ P.3d 1004, remanded for including consideration 1007-08 proceedings of (2009). consistent Lake s The with request this for attorney fees under A.R.S. § 39-121.02(B). supreme court opinion, an award of Id. at 551, ¶ 18, 218 P.3d at 1008. On remand, Lake requested attorneys fees of approximately $70,000. The City objected on several grounds, including that Lake did not substantially prevail in the overall context of the litigation because he was successful only on four of the twentyfour requests referenced in his petition for special action. The City also objected to the amount of fees requested, contending that Lake should not be awarded fees for unsuccessful claims and that some of the amounts claimed were unreasonable. The superior court denied Lake s request for fees with no explanation and Lake appealed to this court. Lake requested fees pursuant to A.R.S. 39-121.02(B), which reads: The court may award attorney fees and other legal costs that are reasonably incurred in any action under this article if the person 3 seeking public records has substantially prevailed. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the rights of any party to recover attorney fees pursuant to § 12-341.01, subsection C, or attorney fees, expenses and double damages pursuant to § 12-349. (Emphasis added.) The prior version of the statute, in effect until May 2006, provided as follows: If the court determines that a person was wrongfully denied access to or the right to copy a public record and if the court finds that the custodian of such public record acted in bad faith, or in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the superior court may award to the petitioner legal costs, including reasonable attorney fees, as determined by the court. A.R.S. § 39-121.02(B) (2001) (emphasis added). language requiring a showing that the By removing the custodian acted improperly, it is plain that the legislature intended to lower a plaintiff s burden in showing entitlement to fees. See Act of May 9, 2006, 2006 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 249, S.B. 1225 Fact Sheet (2nd Reg. Sess.) (stating that purpose of the amendment was to more liberally award [attorneys fees] against state agencies if the plaintiff substantially prevails ). Section 39-121.02(B) has not been analyzed in a reported decision in the context presented here; however, the statute must be applied consistent with the purpose of Arizona s public records law, which serves to open government activity to public scrutiny and reflects a strong policy favoring open disclosure 4 and access. Griffis v. Pinal Cnty., 215 Ariz. 1, 4, ¶ 11, 156 P.3d 418, 421 (2007); Cox Ariz. Publ'ns, Inc. v. Collins, 175 Ariz. 11, 14, 852 P.2d 1194, 1198 (1993). Here, Lake requested fees based on his assertion that he substantially court prevailed. remanded for a Both this determination court of and fees. the supreme Because Lake prevailed on four of his public record requests, the question of whether he substantially prevailed pertains only to those four requests. His request for fees incurred with respect to his other public records requests previously challenged on appeal relating to promptness was expressly denied by the court in 2007 and was affirmed by this court in 2009. City s attempts to turn this issue into a superior Thus, the determination of whether Lake was successful on all of the numerous requests he originally made, and similarly, Lake s request for an award of all fees incurred in the litigation, are misplaced. The focus of the fees proceeding resulting decision and that of the supreme court is narrow: from our whether Lake should be awarded attorneys fees for his efforts relating to the four requests on which he prevailed either in this court or the supreme court. Although consideration of whether a party has prevailed in litigation is typically a question the superior court addresses in the first instance, based on the unique posture of Lake s fee request and in the interests of judicial 5 economy, we find as a matter of law that Lake substantially prevailed on these four claims. See Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep t, 177 Ariz. 322, 333, 868 P.2d 335, 345 (App. 1993) ( As the United Supreme Court fees attorney's States should not has stated result in [a] a request second for major litigation. ) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983))). Because the superior court did not provide any reasoning for its decision, and in light of both parties apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the fees proceeding, we are unable to determine whether the superior court recognized that Lake substantially prevailed when the court entered its order denying fees. As such, no reasonable basis supports the superior court s denial of fees. in the record See Associated Indem. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 571, 694 P.2d 1181, 1185 (1985) (recognizing that although the better practice is to include reasons for a denial of a fee request, the court affirmed without such reasons because there exists a reasonable basis in the record upon which the trial judge could have denied attorney s fees ); Grand Real Estate v. Sirignano, 139 Ariz. 8, 14, 676 P.2d 642, 648 (App. 1983) (concluding that an order denying fees must be supported justification for the denial). by some reasonable factual Moreover, the superior court s order here failed to comply with the rules of procedure for 6 special actions, which requires that the grounds decision shall be stated in the judgment. of the Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 6. For these reasons, we remand to the superior court for reconsideration of its order denying Lake s fee requests, as well as the additional consideration fees of incurred whether in Lake connection should with be this awarded appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED remanding this case to the superior court for reconsideration of Lake s request for attorneys fees consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the superior court shall issue a written decision addressing Lake s fee request, which shall include the findings and conclusions upon which the decision is based. /s/ _________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge /s/ _________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
