Phoenix Newspapers v. Arizona State Senate

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS, INC. et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

ARIZONA STATE SENATE, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0388
FILED 03-06-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. CV2021-008265, LC2021-000180-001
The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Ballard Spahr LLP, Phoenix
By David J. Bodney, Craig C. Hoffman, Matthew E. Kelley
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Statecraft PLLC, Phoenix
By Kory Langhofer, Thomas Basile
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C., Phoenix
By Dennis I. Wilenchik, Brian R. Gifford
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Cyber Ninjas, Inc.
 PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS v. ARIZONA STATE SENATE, et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Chief Judge David B. Gass
joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. and Kathy Tulumello (collectively,
“PNI”) appeal the superior court’s order denying their request for
attorney’s fees from the Arizona State Senate, Senate President Warren
Petersen, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Anthony Kern, and Senate
Secretary Susan Aceves (collectively, “Senate”). For the following reasons,
we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 After the November 2020 election, the Senate began an audit
of the over two million ballots cast in Maricopa County. It retained Cyber
Ninjas, a private corporation, to serve as its primary vendor for that audit.

¶3 Between April and June 2021, PNI served several public
records requests on the Senate and Cyber Ninjas. Cyber Ninjas did not
produce any records in response to PNI’s requests. In late May 2021, the
Senate began producing public records to PNI in response to its requests
but refused to produce any documents that were in the custody and control
of Cyber Ninjas. By early June 2021, the Senate had established an online
public reading room for the publication of its public records document
productions.

¶4 Because the Senate would not produce documents in Cyber
Ninja’s control, in late June 2021, PNI filed a statutory special action in
superior court under the Public Records Law (“PRL”), see A.R.S. § 39-121,
against Cyber Ninjas and the Senate. The court ordered the Senate and
Cyber Ninjas to produce the public records in their possession, custody, or
control by August 31 and to provide a privilege log for any documents
withheld based on a purported privilege or for any other reason by that
date. In a separate action brought by other plaintiffs under the PRL, the
superior court also ordered the Senate to produce “[a]ll documents and
communications relating to the planning and execution of the audit, all

2
 PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS v. ARIZONA STATE SENATE, et al.
Decision of the Court

policies and procedures being used by the agents of the Senate Defendants,
and all records disclosing specifically who is paying for and financing this
legislative activity.”

¶5 The Senate sent Cyber Ninjas a letter on September 14, 2021,
demanding that it immediately provide the public records. The Senate
further advised Cyber Ninjas in a subsequent letter that “[a]ny
determination by [Cyber Ninjas] not to comply (in whole or in part)
immediately with the Senate’s September 14 request hence is prejudicial to
the legal interests of the Senate and its officers.” When Cyber Ninjas had
failed to produce all of the requested documents by the end of the month,
the Senate sent Cyber Ninjas a letter declaring it had breached its contract.

¶6 In November 2021, the superior court ruled that the Senate
had waived legislative privilege with respect to almost all audit-related
communications. In January 2022, the Senate sent Cyber Ninjas a third letter
demanding that it provide the public records.

¶7 After continued litigation in this Court and the Arizona
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s order that
the Senate disclose all communications concerning the audit. Fann v. Kemp, 253 Ariz. 537, 549 ¶ 38 (2022). The Fann Court held that the Senate engaged
in a privileged legislative act when it exercised its authority to conduct the
audit of the 2020 election, resulting in the Senate’s internal communications
about the audit’s authorization, planning, and findings being privileged. Id.
at 545 ¶ 23. The Court further held that records of communications about
the administration of the audit were non-privileged administrative
functions, and “[c]ommunications about the public reaction to the [a]udit
and what information should be released to the public [were] political acts”
that the legislative privilege did not protect. Id. at 546 ¶ 27.

¶8 In October 2023, PNI requested attorney’s fees in superior
court, seeking $686,919.20 in attorney’s fees and $2,188.50 in costs from the
Senate, Cyber Ninjas, and Cyber Ninja’s owners, jointly and severally. The
Senate opposed the fee award, noting that it had not been adverse to PNI
on whether Cyber Ninjas’ public records must be disclosed as of September
14, 2021 since that date.

¶9 In April 2024, the superior court denied PNI’s request for
attorney’s fees and costs with respect to the Senate but granted it with
respect to Cyber Ninjas, awarding PNI $686,919.20 in attorney’s fees and
$2,188.50 in costs. PNI appealed.

¶10 We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

3
 PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS v. ARIZONA STATE SENATE, et al.
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶11 PNI raises one issue on appeal: whether the superior court
abused its discretion by denying its request for attorney’s fees and costs
against the Senate. The PRL provides that “[t]he court may award attorney
fees and other legal costs that are reasonably incurred in any action under
this article if the person seeking public records has substantially prevailed.”
A.R.S. § 39-121.02(B) (emphasis added).

¶12 We review the superior court’s award or denial of attorney’s
fees under the PRL for an abuse of discretion. Am. C.L. Union of Ariz. v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Child Safety, 251 Ariz. 458, 461 ¶ 11 (2021). “If a plaintiff is found to
have substantially prevailed in an action seeking to enforce a public records
request, the trial court has broad discretion under [A.R.S.] § 39-121.02(B) to
award or deny attorney fees and costs.” Id. “We will not disturb the trial
court’s discretionary award of fees if there is any reasonable basis for it.” Id.
(cleaned up). “Both the determination that the petitioner substantially
prevailed and the award of fees after making such a finding are at the
discretion of the trial court.” Hodai v. City of Tucson, 239 Ariz. 34, 46 ¶ 41
(App. 2016).

¶13 “[A] party has ‘substantially prevailed’ if, after a
comprehensive examination by the trial court, it was more successful than
not in obtaining the requested records, defeating the government’s denial
of access to public records, or securing other relief concerning issues that
were contested before litigation was initiated.” Am. C.L. Union of Ariz., 251
Ariz. at 461 ¶ 14.

¶14 The superior court awarded fees to PNI against Cyber Ninjas
but not the Senate, finding that the Senate was “not responsible for Cyber
Ninjas’ obstructionist litigation tactics.” We discern no error in the superior
court’s discretionary decision not to find the Senate jointly and severally
liable for PNI’s attorney’s fees and costs. Although the Senate initially
opposed PNI’s claims for public records that were in the custody of Cyber
Ninjas, it reversed course on that issue in September 2021, about three
months into this three-years’ long litigation. At that point, the Senate ceased
opposing PNI’s claims against Cyber Ninjas and began demanding that
Cyber Ninjas turn over the public records in its possession. PNI criticizes
the Senate’s efforts to encourage Cyber Ninjas’ turn-over of these records
as anemic. Nevertheless, the Senate’s efforts aligned with PNI’s goals and
cannot be characterized as adverse. “[O]ne does not ‘prevail’ over an
agency cooperating with, or acting to facilitate, one’s goals; instead, one
prevails over an adversary.” Paradigm DKD Grp. LLC v. Pima Cnty. Assessor,

4
 PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS v. ARIZONA STATE SENATE, et al.
Decision of the Court

246 Ariz. 429, 436 ¶ 22 (App. 2019). And PNI did not ask the superior court
or this Court to parse the fees from before and after the Senate’s September
2021 change of course.

¶15 About the sole issue on which the Senate and PNI remained
adverse—whether legislative privilege applied to certain internal Senate
documents and communications about the audit—the record does not
reflect that PNI substantially prevailed on that issue. See Fann, 253 Ariz. at
549 ¶ 38. The superior court did not abuse its discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶16 For the above reasons, we affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5