Cited by

Ct. 123(c); –93, ¶ 8 (2003).

Our supreme court has recognized that the public has a “significant interest in access to information regarding the courts,” and given the importance of public access, there is a “presumption that court records be open and available to the public.” ¶ 8 (2003).

recognizing that public records statutes did not affect an agency’s common-law authority to refuse a records request or provide an alternate response in light of “important public policy considerations relating to protection of either the confidentiality of information, privacy of persons or a concern about disclosure detrimental to the best interests of the state”); ¶ 9 (2003) (concluding that “sometimes the benefits of public disclosure must yield to the burden imposed on private individuals o

“[P]ublic records law was not intended to serve as a private discovery tool.” ¶¶ 16-17 (2003) (exempting from public disclosure employment file sought “solely as discovery in the pending disciplinary proceedings”).

See, ¶ 9 (2003); ¶ 27 (App. 2016) (a search of 1400 email accounts that would have to be reviewed and redacted, plus documents normally available in hard copy form only, required a “time-intensive and costly manual search of all paper records” and was “unreasonably burdensom

¶ 34 ¶ 1 , our supreme court analyzed whether Arizona Supreme Court Rule 123, the court’s “open records” *153 provision, permitted disclosure of a probation department’s investigatory file of a department employee who faced disciplinary charges.

the government itself by disclosure.” accord Judicial Watch, 267 P.3d at 1189 (“the burden of producing public records can outweigh the public’s interest in inspecting those records”); Arpaio v. Davis, 221 because the out-of-state cases cited provide the same rule as the Arizona precedents, as discussed

¶ 18, (noting that the relevant consideration for a public records request is “the public’s interest in disclosure,” not someone’s “personal interests as an individual litigant”); see also Scottsdale Unified Sch.

(deciding a moot issue “because the issue it raises is important”); Big D Constr.

We review de novo whether the denial of access to public records is wrongful, , 493 n. 3, ¶¶ 10-11, , 772 n. 3 (2003), but we defer to the superior court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.

¶ 16 , (finding that, although a prior case differed factually from the ease at bar, the reasoning of the prior case was still persuasive).