The Barry Goldwater Institute for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, sought drafts of a proposed 2024 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA), as well as communications about PLEA’s failure to submit a draft MOU as required by the City Code after initiating negotiations for a new MOU in December 2022. After the Goldwater Institute caught wind of the negotiations, it submitted a public records request seeking draft MOUs, proposals, and related communications. The City provided limited documents but withheld draft proposals, arguing premature disclosure could disrupt negotiations by inviting political pressure or collusion and citing the “best interests of the state” exception to Arizona’s public records law, which allows withholding records if disclosure would harm broader governmental interests.
The Goldwater Institute filed a statutory special action to compel disclosure, but the superior court (the first level of Arizona’s general jurisdiction system) denied the request, ruling the City could withhold the documents until the next MOU was finalized. The Goldwater Institute then appealed, arguing the court misapplied the legal standard for the exception and failed to consider the public’s interest in transparency.
The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the superior court’s application of the “best interests of the state” exception but remanded for further review of the withheld documents. The Court emphasized that Arizona’s public records law presumes disclosure unless a valid exception applies. The City, as the party resisting disclosure, bore the burden of proving that the harm from release outweighed the public’s right to access. The Court acknowledged that the superior court’s factual findings – particularly its reliance on testimony from City officials about the risks of premature disclosure – were entitled to deference unless clearly erroneous. However, the Court found the record insufficient to determine whether all withheld documents truly qualified for the exception, as much of the MOU likely contained boilerplate language unchanged from prior publicly available agreements.
The Court rejected the Goldwater Institute’s argument that the superior court erred by focusing on “potential” harm rather than the required “probability” of harm. While the lower court used both terms, the Court found no reversible error, noting the City’s evidence sufficiently demonstrated that disclosure could disrupt negotiations. The Court also dismissed the Goldwater Institute’s broader policy argument about taxpayer-funded processes, stating that the public nature of the records did not automatically override the City’s interest in confidential negotiations.
Crucially, the appellate court ruled that the superior court should have conducted a judicial review of the withheld documents to assess which portions, if any, could be redacted or released.
The Court noted that many MOU provisions were likely unchanged from prior public agreements and thus not subject to the exception. Because the City never provided the documents for review, the Court remanded for the superior court to examine them and determine whether redactions were justified. Finally, the Court denied the Goldwater Institute’s request for attorneys’ fees without prejudice, leaving the issue for the superior court to consider on remand.
Barry Goldwater Inst. for Pub. Pol’y Rsch. Ctr. v. City of Phoenix, 563 P.3d 656 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).