Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Lake v. Phoenix

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication, Public Documents
  • Date of Decision
    October 30, 2009
  • Outcome
    Decision - Procedural Outcome, Remanded for Decision in Accordance with Ruling, Decision Outcome (Disposition/Ruling), Access to Information Granted
  • Case Number
    CV-09-0036-PR
  • Region & Country
    United States, North America
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Administrative Law
  • Themes
    Access to Public Information
  • Tags
    Metadata

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of Arizona held that the City of Phoenix was required to disclose metadata (electronic information concerning the history of an electronic document) pursuant to Arizona’s freedom of information law. The City did not contest that the content of the documents constituted a public record, but argued that the metadata did not qualify as a public record subject to disclosure requirements. The Supreme Court reasoned that the metadata in an electronic document is part of the underlying document; it does not stand on its own and when an official uses a computer to make a public record, the metadata forms part of the document as much as words on a page.

This analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org.


Facts

Mr. Lake, a police officer, applied to the City of Phoenix for disclosure of the metadata attached to electronic documents regarding his work performance prepared by his supervisor. Metadata is a set of electronic data that provide information describing the history of an electronic document such as the creation date, how often the document was accessed and when.

Mr. Lake made this request in the context of an employment discrimination lawsuit in which he suspected that the City had backdated the paper copies provided. The City did not contest that the content of the documents constituted a public record, but contended that the metadata did not qualify as a public record subject to disclosure requirements. The Maricopa County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the City.


Decision Overview

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the relevant Arizona law, Arizona Revised Statutes §39-121 (2001),  applied to  metadata. It held that where public records are maintained in electronic format, the electronic information, including the metadata, is subject to public disclosure.

The Court said that the metadata were “part of the underlying document . . . as much as the words on the page.” The Court called it “illogical” and in conflict with the law’s “policy of openness” to require that information handwritten on a document would be subject to public disclosure whereas the same information electronically embedded could be withheld. The Court explicitly rejected the City’s assertion that this ruling would create an “administrative nightmare”

By way of background, the Court referred to state law which does not define “public record” but obliges public entities and officers to “maintain all records . . . reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of their official activities . . .”  It also referred to the case of Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487, 490, 687 P.2d 1242, 1245 (1984)  in which the court stated that  all records required to be made and maintained by the state law are to be available for inspection, subject to the official’s discretion to deny or restrict access where recognition of the interests of privacy, confidentiality, or the best interest of the state in carrying out its legitimate activities outweigh the general policy of open access.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Arizona State Freedom of Information Law
  • U.S., Mathews v. Pyle, 75 Ariz. 76, 251 P.2d 893
  • U.S., Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1, 156 P.3d 418 (2007)
  • U.S., Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan, 201 Ariz. 344, 35 P.3d 105 (App. 2001)
  • U.S., Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty. v. Rogers, 168 Ariz. 531, 815 P.2d 900 (1991)
  • U.S., Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487, 687 P.2d 1242 (1984)
  • U.S. Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 464 F.Supp.2d 1100 (2006)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents

Attachments:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback