I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO J OS E P H M
. AR P AI O,

D e f e n d a n t/A p p e llan t,
v . C I T I Z E N PU B L I SH I N G C O
. and M AR K K I M BLE, D efen dan t s/ A pp el l ees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C V 2008- 0062

DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C
- 20073995 H onor abl e C har l es V
. H arr i ngt on, J udge

AFFI RM ED
I afr at e & A s s oci at es B yM i chel e M
. I afr at e and J eff r eyL
. M cLer r an
St e p t o e & J o h n s o n LLP B yD avi d J
. B odney , K ar en J
. H ar t m an- T el l ez, and A ar on J
. L ockw ood P h o e n ix A t t or ney s forD efe ndant/ A ppel l ant
P h o e n ix A t t or ney s forD efe ndant s / A ppel l ees
B R A M M E R , J udge. D EC 18 2008 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

¶1 A ppel l antM ar i copa Count ySher i ff J os eph A rpaio appea l s fr om t he tr i al
cour t ’ s aw ar d of at t or ney fee s agai ns t hi m and i n favorof appe l l ees C i t i zen Publ i s hi ng C o.
a n d M a rk K im b le ( c o llec tiv e ly , “C iti z e n ” ) in a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t ac tio n P im a C o u n ty A t t or neyB arbar a LaW al l br oughtr egar di ng a publ i c r ecor ds r eques tC i t i zen ha d s ubm i t t ed to L aW all
. A rpa io as serts A
. R
. S
. § 3 9 -12 1
. 0 2 (B ) d o es n o t p erm it the tr ial co u rtto req u ir e h i m t o p a yCi t i z e n ’ s a t t o r n e yf e e s . F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. Fac t ual and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound ¶2 T h e u n d e rly in g f a c ts a re u n d isp u ted . In Ju ly2 0 0 7 , C iti z e n su b m itt e d a p u b lic
r ecor ds r eques tt o L aW al l fordocument s r el at ed t o t he A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al ’ s t r ans fer of a ci vi l for fei tur e cas e t o t he Pi m a C ount y A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce ( “PC A O ”)
. PC A O cont act ed A rp a io , w h o se o f

f ice h a d o rig in a lly in v e stig a ted th e c a se , to a sk if h e h a d a n yo b jec tio n to t he r el eas e of c er t ai n cor r es pondence betw een P C A O and A rpai o’ s offi ce c oncerni ng t he t r ans fer
. A rpai o r es ponded t hatPC A O coul d notpr oper l ygi ve C i ti ze n acc es s t o t he
corr es pondence beca us e i t w oul d be har m ful t o t he s t at e and t hat t he r ecor ds w er e pr ot ect ed b ya p u rpo rt ed att o rne y -cli en t r el at i ons hi p betw een PC A O and the M ar icop a C o u n tyS h eriff ’s O f f ic e . ¶3 L a W a ll th e n f iled a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t ac tio n a sk in g th e trial c o u rt to det er m i ne: ( 1) w hetheran att or ney - cl i entr el at i ons hi p exi s t ed i n t hes e ci rcum s t ance s b e tw e e n P C A O a n d A rp a io ; ( 2 ) if so , w h e th e r th e in f o rm a tio n so u g h t b y th e C iti z e n ’s p u b lic
r ecor ds r eques tw as pr i vi l eged; ( 3) w h ethe r th e i nfor m at i on m aybe r el eas ed; and ( 4) “t heT he compl ai ntal s o named t he St at e of A r i zona a s a def endan t, b u t the St at e w as 1 di s m i s s ed fr om t he ac t i on. 3 r i ght s and ot herl egal r el at i ons hi ps ” of the part i es “w i t h r es pectt o this m at t er . ” The compl ai ntnamed A rpai o and C i t i zen as defe ndant s . I n r es pons e, A rpai o ar gued LaW al l w as 1 notper m i t t ed t o releas e t he corr es pondence , agai n as s er t i ng t he att or ney - cl i entpr i vi l ege pr ot ect ed the i nfor m at i on and thatr el eas e of the i nfor m at i on w oul d be harm ful t o t he s t at e. L a W a ll a n d C itiz e n a rg u e d L a W a ll c o u ld p ro p e rl yre le a s e th e re c o rd s . ¶4 A ft err evi ew i ng t he corr es pondence , t he tr i al cour tdet er m i ned the
corr es pondence w as a publ i c r ecor d, no at t or ney - cl i ent pr i vi l ege exi s t ed betw een PC A O and A rp a io , b u t th a t m in o r po rtio n s o f th e c o rre sp o n d e n c e w e re p ro tec ted a tto rn e y w o rk p ro d u c t. T he cour t or der ed L aW al l t o pr ovi de C i t i zen a cce s s t o t he corr es pondence aft err edac t i ng t he p ro te c te d in f

o rm a tio n . ¶5 Ci t i z e n the n r e qu e s t e d a t t orne yfees and c os t s pu r s ua ntt o A. R. S. § § 1 2 -34 1
. 0 1 (C ), 1 2 -34 9 (A ), an d 3 9 -12 1
. 0 2 (B ). A fter a h ea ri n g , the co u rtg ran ted C it izen ’s requestpu rs uan t t o § 39 -121.02(B ), orderi ng A rpai o t o pay C i t i zen $25 , 24 1 i n att orneyfees. T h is a p p e a l f

o llo w e d
. D i s cus s i on ¶6 T h is c a s e p re s e n ts a q u e s tio n o f s ta tu to ry c o n s tr u c tio n w e re v ie w d e n o v o . See Mc H a le v . M c H a le , 210 A r i z. 194, ¶ 7, 109 P. 3d 89, 91 ( A pp. 2005)
. “W hen cons t rui ng a
s t atut e, ourgoal ‘ i s t o ful fi l l t he i nt entof t he l egi s l atur e t hat w r ot e i t . ’ ” C ity o f S ier ra V

istaA rpa io arg u ed fo r t h e f ir st t im e a t oral arg u m en t b ef o re th is co u rtthat the d ec laratory 2 j udgm entact i on fi l ed byL aW al l i s notan “a ct i on undert hi s ar t i cl e, ” namel yA rt icl e 2 of C h a p ter 1 o f

A riz o n a ’s p u b lic re c o rd s la w . § 3 9 -1 2 1 .0 2 (B ). H e h a s th e re f o re w a iv e d th is a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. See C i t y of Tucs on v. C l ear C hannel O utdoor, I

nc. , 218 A r i z. 172, n. 3, 1 8 1 P
. 3 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 7 n . 3 (A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (“Issu es ra ised fo r t h e f ir st t im e a t o ra l a rg u m e n t are g e n e r a l l yd e e me d u n t i me l ya n d wa i v e d
. ” )
. I n a n ye v e n t , no t h i n g i n t h e s t a tu t o r ys c h e me s ugges t s a dec l ar at or yj udgm entact i on br oughtt o det er m i ne t h e p ar t i es ’ r i ght s underour publ i c r ecor ds l aw w oul d notbe s uch an a ct i on, ort hatA rpai o w as nota pr operpar t yt o t he a c tio n . See A
. R
. S
. § 1 2 -18 4 1 (A ). I ndeed, ourl egi s l at u re co n si der ed and r ej ect ed an a m e n d m e n t to § 3 9
- 1 2 1 .0 2 th a t w o u ld h a v e lim ited d e c lar a to rya c tio n s u n d e r o u r p u b lic rec o rds law b yreq u ir ing the re q u esto r’s co n sen t, str o n g lysu g g esti n g that o u r l eg isl ature co n side rs de clarato ryjud g m en t acti o n s to be “a n ac ti o n u n d er th is arti cle.” § 3 9 -12 1
. 0 2 (B ); s ee Se nat e Fi nalA m ended Fact Sheet , S
. B
. 1 2 2 5 , 4 7 th L eg . , 2 n d R eg . S ess. (A ri z. 20 0 6 ).

4 v. D i r. , A ri

z. D ep’t of E nvtl . Q u a lit y , 1 9 5 A ri z. 37 7 , ¶ 1 0 , 9 8 8 P
. 2 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), q u o t i n g S t a t e v . Wi l l i a ms , 1 7 5 A riz . 9 8 , 1 0 0 , 8 5 4 P .2 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 (1 9 9 3 ). “I f th e sta tu te is cl earand unambi guous , w e appl yt he pl ai n m eani ng of t he s t atut e. ” H our ani v. B ens on Hos p. , 211 A r i z. 427, ¶ 7, 122 P. 3d 6, 10 ( A pp. 2005)
. “W e l ook
. . . to the stat u te’s l anguage . . . [as ] ‘ t he bes tand mostr el i abl e i ndex of [ t he] s t atut e’ s m eani ng. ’ ” Wi l l i a ms , 1 7 5 A ri z . a t 1 0 0 , 8 5 4 P .2 d a t 1 3 3 , quot i ng Jans on ex r el

. Jans on v. C hr is t ens en , 167 A r i z. 470, 471, 808 P. 2d 1222, 1223 ( 1991)
. “W e r es or t t o addi t i onal cons i der at i ons ‘ s uch as t he sta tu te’ s c o n tex t, his to ry , su b jec t m a tter, ef

f e c ts an d c o n se q u e n c e s, sp irit, a n d p u rp o se ’ o n ly i f t he l anguage pr oves t o be ambi guous . ” Tayl orv. C r ui ks hank , 214 A r i z. 40, ¶ 10, 148 P. 3d 8 4 , 8 7 (A p p . 2 0 0 6 ), q u o tin gS ta te v . Fe ll , 2 0 3 A ri z. 1 8 6 , ¶ 6 , 5 2 P
. 3 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 0 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶7 Sect i on 39- 121. 02( B ) pr ovi des , i n per t i nentpar t , as fol l ow s : “The cour tm ay
a w a rd a tto rn e yf

e e s a n d o th e r le g a l co sts th a t ar e re a so n a b lyin c u rre d in a n y a c tio n u n d e r th is
ar t i cl e i f t he per s on s eeki ng publ i c r ecor ds has s ubs t ant i al l ypr evai l ed. ” Sect i on 2A nd ours upr eme cour thas addr es s ed the mer i t s of a s i m i l ardecl ar at o ryact i on w i t hout

s u g g e s tin g s u c h a n a c tio n w a s n o t “ a n a c t i o n u n d e r [ th e p u b lic re c o rd s la w ].” § 3 9 -1 2 1 .0 2 (B ); s ee Scot t s dal e U ni f i ed Sch. D is t . N

o. 48 v. K PN X B r oad. C o. , 191 A r i z. 297, ¶ 5, 95 5 P. 2 d 5 3 4 , 5 3 6 ( 1 9 9 8 )
. Ar p a i o a l s o a s s e r t e d f o rt h e f i r s tt i me a ta r g u me n tt h at § 39- 121. 02( B ) does not appl ybeca us e he di d notr ece i ve a publ i c r ecor ds r eques tand thus di d notdenyC i t i zen a cce s s t o t he r ecor ds
. T o t he ext ent t hi s ar gum entdi ffe r s fr om t he a rg u m e n ts p ro p e rl yra is e d in h is o p e n in g b ri e f , A rp a io h a s w a iv e d it o n a p p e a l. See Cl ear C hannel O utdoor, I

n c. , 2 1 8 A riz . 1 7 2 , n .3 , 1 8 1 P .3 d a t 2 2 7 n .3 . A n d w e a lso n o te th is ar gum entcont r adi ct s t he pos i t i on A rpai o too k b el ow
— t hatL aW al l w as hi s at t or ney , and t her efor e hi s agent , w ho ow ed hi m al l t he fi duci arydut i es t hatfl ow fr om an att or ney/ cl i ent r el at i ons hi p, and t her efor e ar guabl yr ece i ved the r eques ton hi s behal f. I n m aki ng hi s ar gum ent , A rpai o does not r el y on § 39- 121. 02( B ) , m uch l es s exami ne 3 it s lan g u ag e. Instead , h e c it es to § 3 9 -1 2 1 .0 2 (C ), st ati n g itall o w s the co u rtto “a w ard at t or ney ’ s fee s and cos t s agai ns tt he cus t odi an ” if a c c e s s to a p u b lic re c o rd “ is w ro n g f u lly deni ed. ” A rpai o m i s i nt erpr et s § 39- 121. 02( C )
. T hatpr ovi s i on i ns t ead c r eat es a ca us e of 5 39- 121. 02( B ) i s cont ai ned i n A rt icl e 2 , C hapt er1, of Ti t l e 39 of the A r i zona Revi s ed St atut es , t he art i cl e governi ng t he dutyof an offi cer of a publ i c bodyt o m ai nt ai n r ecor ds and p ro v id e p u b lic a c c e ss to th o s e r e c o r d s. N e a rlya ll o f th e p ro v isio n s o f

th is a rticle re f

e r to ei t her t he “o ffi cer” or “publi c bo dy ” or “cust od i an” respon si ble for th e re q u est ed records. S e e , e .g ., A
. R
. S. §§ 39- 121; 39- 121. 01( B ) , ( C ) , ( D ) , ( E ) ; 39- 121. 03( A ) , ( B )
. Sect i on 3 9 -1 2 1 .0 2 (B ), h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t u se th o se ter m s an d d o e s n o t sp e c if yw h a t en tityis liab le foranyfee s and cos t s aw ar ded t o t he s ucce s s ful par t y . T hus , w e m us t det er m i ne w hethert he l egi s l atur e i nt ended t hat onl y t he cus t odi an of the r eques t ed r ecor ds be l i abl e foranyfee s and
cos t s aw ar ded. ¶8 A s w e under s t and hi s ar gum ent , A rpa io c ont ends i tw as unnece s s aryfort he legislatu re to sp ec ifythe re sp o n sible en ti tyin § 3 9 -1 2 1
. 0 2 (B ) be ca u se itis th e c u stod ian’s dut yt o m ai nt ai n r ecor ds and m ake t hem avai l abl e for i ns pect i on. A rpai o r el i es on St at e ex 3a c t i o n f

o rd a ma g e s c a u s e d b yt h e wr o n g f u l d e n i a l o f

a c c e s s t o a p u b l i c r e c o r d a n d , a s we expl ai n, i n cont r as t t o s ubs ect i on ( B ) , s peci fi cal l ys t at es t he ac t i on i s agai ns tt he “of fi ceror p u b lic b o d y .” 6 r el

. Lars on v. Far l ey , 1 0 6 Ar i z . 1 1 9 , 1 2 2 , 4 7 1 P
. 2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 4 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , i n wh i c h o u rs u p r e me
cour ts t at ed t hat w e shoul d i nt erpr et a st atut e “i n conj unct i on w i t h ot her s t atut es t o t he end t hatt heym aybe harm oni ous and cons i s t ent , ” and “ [i ] f t he s t atut es r el at e t o t he same subj ect
o r h a v e th e sa m e g e n e ra l p u rp o se
— th a t is, sta tu tes w h ich a re in p a ri m a ter ia— th e ysh o u ld be r ead i n connec t i on w i t h, ors houl d be cons t rued t o g ethe r w it h ot herr el at ed s t atut es , as th o u g h th e yc o n stitu ted o n e law .” T h u s, A rp a io re a so n s, b e c a u se th e o th e r statu tes in A rticle 2 d e a l s o l e l ywi t h t h e d u t yo f t h e o f f i c e rt o ma i n t a i n a n d p r o v i d e a c c e s s t o t h e r e c o r d s , we
m ust co n clud e § 3 9 -12 1
. 0 2 (B ) pe rm it s an aw ard o f a tt o rne yfe es o n lyag ains t th at of fice r. ¶9 B ut t he rul e of s t atut or ycons t ruct i on des cr i bed i n Far l ey does notr equi r e us t o r ead a bs entl anguage i nt o § 39- 121. 02( B )
. I ndeed, t o do s o w oul d vi ol at e ourrul es of
s ta tu to ry in te rp re ta tio n . See St at e v. G onz al es , 206 A r i z. 469, ¶ 11, 80 P. 3d 276, 278 ( A pp. 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ ‘ [ W ] h e n t h e l e g i s l a tu r e h a s s p e c i f i c a l l yi n c l u d e d a t e r m i n s o me p l ace s w i t hi n a
s t atut e and e xcl uded i ti n ot herpl ace s , cour t s w i l l notr ead t hat t er m i nt o t he s ect i ons fr om
w h ich it w as e x clud ed
. ’” ), quot i ng Luchans kiv. C ongr ove , 193 A r i z. 176, 177, ¶ 14, 971 P
. 2 d 6 3 6 , 6 3 9 (A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). A s w e n o ted ab o v e, u n li k e m o st of the p rov isi o n s o f A ri zo n a’s publ i c r ecor ds l aw , § 39- 121. 02( B ) does notr efe rt o t he off i cerorpubl ic bodyhavi ng
cus t odyof t he r eques t ed r ecor ds
. I n fur t hercontr as t , t he othersubse ct i ons of § 39- 121. 02 speci fi cal l yrefer t o thatoff i cer orpu bli c bo dy
. S ub sect i on (C ) of § 3 9-121
. 02 creat es aA ddi t i onal l y , even ha d L aW al l deni ed the r eques t a nd C i t i zen br oughta s peci al 4 a c t i o n a s c o n t e m p l a t e d b y § 3 9
- 1 2 1
. 0 2 ( A ) , A rp a i o s t i l l c o u l d h a v e b e e n j o i n e d a s a p a r t y. See A r i z. R
. P. Spec. A ct i ons 2( a) ( 1)
. T hus , ourl egi s l atur e w as aw ar e thatper s ons or or gani zat i ons ot hert han the r eques t orand cus t odi an coul d be part i es t o an ac t i on underour p u b l i c r e c o r d s l a w. Th a t p o s s i b i l i t y a n d t h e l e g i s l a tu r e ’ s f a i l u r e t o s p e c i f

y i n § 3 9
- 1 2 1
. 0 2 ( B) t hatat t or neyfee s coul d onl ybe aw ar ded agai ns tt he cus t odi an s t r ongl ys ugges tno s uch res t ri ct i on exis t s. 7 caus e of act i on by t he per s on r eques t i ng t he re cor ds agai ns t “the offi cer orpubl i c body ” w ho “w r ongful l yd en ied a cc ess to [th e re q u ested ] pu b li c re co rds” fo r an yd am ag es “ resu lt ing fr om t he d e n i a l
. ” Su b s e c t i o n ( A) p e r mi t s t h e p e r s o n r e q u e s t i n g t h e r e c o r d s t o a p p e a l t h e deni al of hi s orherr eques tbys peci al act i on “aga i ns tt he off i cerorpubl i c body
. ” ¶10 T hat the legi s l atur e us ed the t er m “off i cerorpubl i c body ” el s ew her e, even
w i t hi n t he s ame st atut e, butnoti n § 39- 121. 02( B ) , s t r ongl ys ugges t s t he l egi s l atur e di d not i nt end l i abi l i t yforat t or neyfee s aw ar ded undert hat stat ut e t o be l i m i t ed t o t he off i ceror p u b lic b o d y re s p o n s ib le f o r p ro v id in g a c c e s s to th e p u b lic re c o rd s . See G onz al ez , 206 A r i z. 469, ¶ 11, 80 P. 3d at278. H ad t he l egi s l atur e i nt ended for t he r es pons i bi l i t y t o fal l s ol el yon th e c u sto d ian o f

th e re c o rd s, it w o u ld h a v e sp e c if ica llyso sta ted in th e sta tu te—ju st a s it cl ear l ydel i neat ed t he obl i gat i ons of t h e cu stod ian el s ew her e i n A r t i cl e 2, i ncl udi ng t he
cus t odi an’ s l i abi l i t yunder§ 39- 1 2 1
. 0 2 (C ) fordamages caus ed byt he w r ongful deni al of access t o reque st ed records. 4 ¶11 W e m a yg le a n th e le g is l a t u r e ’ s in te n t f ro m th e s ta tu te ’s la n g u a g e . See Wi l l i a ms , 1 7 5 A ri z. at 1 0 0 , 8 5 4 P
. 2 d at 1 3 3
. T h e st atute’s r ef ere n ce to th e “ p re v a il[ ing ]” p a r t y s u g g e s t s t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d c o s t s s h o u l d b e a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t a n o n - p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y,8

h e re th e p a rtyo r p a rties o p p o sin g a c c e ss to th e re c o rd s. T h e lan g u a g e o f § 3 9 -1 2 1 .0 2 (B ) is
s i m i l art o t he l anguage cont ai ned i n A
. R
. S. § 12- 341. 01( A ) , w hi ch p rov ides t hatt he “s ucce s s ful par t y ” i s ent i t l ed t o r eas onabl e att or neyfee s i n any “cont es t ed ac t i on ar i s i ng out
o f a co n tr ac t. ” U nder§ 12- 341. 01( A ) , t he adve r s e part yi s r es pons i bl e fort he s ucce s s ful p a rt y ’s a tto rn e yf

e e s . See Pi oneerR oof

i ng C o. v. Mar di an C ons t r . C o. , 152 A r i z. 455, 466, 7 3 3 P .2 d 6 5 2 , 6 6 3 (A p p . 1 9 8 6 ); N at i onw i de R es . C or

p. v. N gai , 129 A r i z. 226, 232, 630 P. 2d 4 9 , 5 5 (A p p . 1 9 8 1 ). “A d v e rsity
. . . is n o t d e ter m in e d so lely f ro m th e p a rties ’ a lig n m e n t in t he pl eadi ngs , but r ather m us t be as cert ai ned fr om t he oppos i ng pos i t i ons ori nt er es t s of t he par t i es . ” P i oneerR oof

i ng , 152 A r i z. at 466, 733 P. 2d at 663. “‘ T he w or d “adve r s e” i n l egal pr ocee di ngs has been s ai d t o be equi val ent to o r s ynony m ous w i t h “oppos [i ng] ” and “oppos i t e. ”’ ” N

gai , 1 2 9 A ri z . a t 2 3 2 , 6 3 0 P .2 d a t 5 5 , q u o tin gH a rv e y v . L e w is , 158 N
. W
. 2d 809, 812 ( M i ch. C t . A pp. 1968)
. D es pi t e t he fac t t hat bot h A rpai o and C i t i zen w er e named
as defe ndant s in the decl ar at or yact i on, A rpai o’ s pos i t i on w as cl ear l yadver s e t o t hatof C i t i zen a nd L aW al l , and A rpai o does notar gue otherw i s e. ¶12 M or eover , des p it e A rpai o’ s as s er t i on t o t he contr ary , ouri nt erpr et at i on of § 39- 121. 02( B ) i s cons i s t entw i t h t he r emai nderof t he s t atut or ys cheme. T her e i s not hi ng i ncons i s tent in p la ci ng t he dut yt o m ai nt ai n and pr ovi de ac ces s t o pubi c r ecor ds on t he
cus t odi an of thos e r ecor ds but i n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s al l ow i ng t he tr i al cour tt o s hi ftl egal f e e s inc u rred d u ri n g a d ispu te ov er a cc ess to tho se re co rds to a third p artyw h en the th ir d par t yengende r ed the di s put e overacc es s and i s a part yt o t he ac t i on.9

¶13 T he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y of § 39- 121. 02( B ) al s o s uppor t s ourconcl us i on. T he legislatu re a m en d ed § 3 9 -12 1
. 0 2 (B ) i n 2 0 0 6
. 2 0 0 6 A ri z. S ess. L aw s, ch
. 2 4 9 , § 1
. B ef o re th a t am e n d m e n t, § 3 9 -1 2 1 .0 2 (B ) sta ted :

I f t he court d eter m i nes t hata per s on w as w r ongful l ydeni ed ac ce ss to o r t h e righ t t o co p y a p u b lic rec o rd a n d if t h e c o u rt fi nds t hat t he cust odi an of suc h publ i c r ecor d act ed i n bad fa i t h, ori n an arbi t r aryorcapr i ci ous m anner , t he s uper i orcour tm ay aw ar d t o t he pet i t i oner l egal cos t s , i ncl udi ng r eas onabl e att or ney f e e s, a s d e ter m in e d b yth e c o u rt. I d. T hus , pr i ort o 2006, § 39- 121. 02( B ) s peci fi cal l ypr ovi ded foran aw ar d of at t or neyfee s agai ns tt he cus t odi an of t he r ecor ds i f t he cus t odi an’ s act i ons w er e arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous , or i n bad fa i t h. T hat t he l egi s l atur e r emoved t hatl i m i t i ng l anguage and r epl ace d i tw i t h br oader lang u ag e sugges t s t he l egi s l atur e i nt ended thata part yot hert han the cus t odi an coul d be lia b le f o r a tto rn e yf

e e s a w a rd e d u n d e r t h e a m e n d e d s ta tu te . See I n r e Estat e of

N ew m an , 532 A riz
. A d v . R e p . 1 2 , ¶ 2 2 (C t. A p p . Ju n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 ) (f in d in g it “in a p p ro p ria te f o r th is c o u rt to i ncorpor at e i nt o a curr ents t atut e l anguage w hi ch had been el i m i nat ed fr om t he pr edec es s or statu te”). ¶14 F o r th e re a so n s s tate d a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e § 3 9 -1 2 1 .0 2 (B ) d o e s n o t p ro h ib it a tr ial cour tfr om r equi r i ng a part yot hert han the cus t odi an of the r eques t ed r ecor ds t o payA l t hough t he part i es devot e cons i der abl e por t i ons of t hei rbr i efs t o ar gui ng w hether 5 A rpai o w as al s o a “c us t odi an” of t he r ecor ds i n ques t i on, w e nee d not deci de t hatques t i on. As we h a v e e x p l a i n e d , wh e t h e ra p a r t yc a n b e l i a b l e f o ra t t o rn e yf

e e s u n d e r§ 3 9
- 1 2 1
. 0 2 ( B) does not hi nge on w hether t he par t yi s a cus t odi an of the r eques t ed r ecor ds
. N ordo w e r eac h Ci t i z e n’ s a r gum ent t he t r i a l c ou r ta l t e r na t i ve l yc ou l d h a ve a w a r de d f e e s un de rA
. R. S. § § 1 2 -3 4 9 (A ) o r 1 2 -3 4 1 .0 1 (C ). 10 at t or neyfee s t o t he pr evai l i ng par t y . T he tr i al cour tm ayr equi r e part i es adver s e t o t he 5 request i ng part yt o p ay t hat pa rty ’s at t orney fees i f t he request i ng part ysubst anti al l yprevai l s. D i s posi t i on ¶15 W e a f

f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a war d o f a t t o r n e yf

e e s i n f a v o ro f Ci t i z e n a nd
a g a in st A rp a io
. A n d , p u rsu a n t to § 3 9 -1 2 1 .0 2 (B ), w e g ra n t C iti z e n ’s r e q u e st f o r re a so n a b le
a t t o r n e y f

e e s a n d t a x a b l e c o s t s o n a p p e a l p e n d i n g i t s c o mp l i a n c e wi t h Ru l e 2 1 ( c ) , Ar i z . R. Ci v. A pp . P.
J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

J O H N PE L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge
H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge, s peci al l yconcurr i ng. ¶16 I a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s a n a lysi s . I w rite s e p a ra telyb e c a u se th e m a jo rity
m erel ym enti on s A
. R
. S
. § 39-121
. 02 (A ) i n d i ct a i n fo otnot e 4, bu tt hat s ect i on i s the clear est11

i ndi cat i on of l egi s l at i ve i nt entconce r ni ng an aw ar d of at t or neyfee s and des er ves fur t her
e x p la n a tio n . ¶17 A rpai o ar gues t hat t he publ i c r ecor ds s t atut es “i m pos e[] a duty , and any
s anct i ons for fai l i ng t o per for m t he dut y , on t he cus t odi an of r ecor ds onl y . ” B utt he cl earand unambi guous l anguage of t he s t atut es convey a l egi s l at i ve i nt ent t o i m pos e att or neyfee s on persons othert han t he cu st od i an. S ect i on 39 -121.02(A ), A
. R
. S
. , st at es:

A n yp e rso n w h o h a s re q u e ste d to e x a m in e o r c o p yp u b lic recor ds pu rs uan tt o thi s ar t i cl e, and w ho has bee n d enied access t o ort he r i ghtt o copys uch r ecor ds , m ayappea l t he deni al t hr ough a s peci al act i on i n t he s uper i orcour t , p u rs uantt o the rul es of pr ocedur e fors peci al act i ons agai ns tt he o ffi ceror p u b l i c b o d y. R u le 2 (a )(1 ), A riz . R
. P
. S p e c . A c tio n s, g o v e rn s p a rties to sp e c ial ac tio n s an d sta tes in p a rt:

“ If a n yp u b lic b o d y , tri b u n a l, or o f f ice r is n a m e d a s a d e f

e n d a n t, th e re a l p a rty o r p a rties in i nt er es t s hal l al s o be j oi ned as defe ndant s . ” Subs ect i on ( b) of t he rul e s t at es : “The cour tm ay d ire c t th a t n o tice o f

th e a c tio n b e g iv e n to a n yp e rso n . It m a ya llo w o th e r p e rso n s to i nt er vene s ubj ectt o t he pr ovi s i ons of R ul e 24 of the R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e; or m ayor der t hei rj oi nderas par t i es ; orm ayal l ow t hem t o par t i ci pat e ami cus cur i ae. ” ¶18 B y pr ovi di ng t hat an act i on under t he publ i c re cor ds s t atut es m aybe br ought “pur s uantt o t he rul es of pr ocedur e fors peci al act i ons agai ns t t he offi cer or publ i c body , ” t he l egi s l atur e expr es s ed i t s d esir e thatot herpar t i es , i ncl udi ng t he r eal par t yi n i nt er es t , be br oughti nt o t he a cti o n . T hen, i n § 39- 121. 01( B ) , t he l egi s l atur e s t at es : “The cour tm ay
a w a rd a tto rn e yf

e e s an d o th e r le g a l co sts th a t ar e re a so n a b lyin c u rre d in a n ya c tio n u n d e r th isA s t he m aj or i t y s t at es , A rpai o w ai ved anycl ai m t hatt hi s decl ar at or yj udgm entact i on 6 w as notan “a ct i on under ” t he publ i c re cor ds s t atut es byfai l i ng t o m ake thatar gum entbel ow o r i n h is b ri e f

s in th is c o u rt . Su

pra , n . 2 . I w o u ld n o t d e c id e o r f u rt h e r d is c u s s th e is s u e . 12 ar t i c l e i f t h e p e r s o n s e e k i n g p u b l i c r e c o r d s h a s s u b s t a n t i a l l yp r e v a i l e d
. ” Be c a u s e t he l egi s l atur e di d notl i m i tt he cour t ’ s abi l i t y t o aw ar d at t or ney fee s agai ns tt he cus t odi an and beca us e the l egisl atur e cont empl at ed thatot herpar t i es w oul d be adde d t o t he ac t i on under t he rul es fors peci al acti ons , i thas cl ear l yand unambi guous l yexpr es s ed i t s i nt entt hat
a tto rn e yf

e e s b e a w a rd a b le a g a in s t o th e r p a rt ie s in th e a c tio n in a d d itio n to th e c u s to d ia n . ¶19 A toral argum ent, A rpai o cl ai m ed thati tw as t he cu st od i an’s dut yt o d i scl ose t he r ecor ds and onl y t he cus t odi an coul d denydi s cl os ur e. T her efor e, he r eas oned, onl yt he
cus t odi an coul d be l i abl e fort he att or neyfee s . B ut A rpai o’ s ar gum ent i s nots uppor t ed by t he pl ai n l anguage of t he s t atut es , w hi ch pr ovi de thatot her par t i es m ay be br oughti nt o t he
a c tio n a n d b e s u b

je c t to a n a w a rd o f

f e e s . ¶20 H er e, L aW al l t hough tth e r e cor ds s houl d have be en di s cl os ed. A rpai o obj ect ed t o t he di s clos ur e of the r ecor ds cl ai m i ng t heycons t i tut ed pr ot ect ed att or ney - cl i ent i nfor m at i on. H e i ns i s t ed thatL aW all w o u ld vi ol at e the ethi cal rul es of conduc ti f s he d isc lo se d th e re c o rd s. A rp a io caus ed t he l i t i gat i on an d § 3 9 -12 1
. 0 2 (B ) all o w ed the tri al co u rt t o aw ar d fee s agai ns t hi m . A rpai o’ s cl ai m s t o t he contr aryar e di r ect l ycontr adi ct ed byt he 6 p la in la n g u a g e o f

th e s ta tu te . J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge