This is a dispute over a public records request. Division 2 held that if a public entity asserts the attorney-client or work product privilege, it should prepare a privilege log. Nothing new here. This follows the Fann v. Kemp case decided by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2022. Judicial Watch also challenged the adequacy of the search. The public entity bears the burden of showing it adequately searched for responsive records. The court of appeals found the testimony from the custodian of records explaining why the search was limited to keywords “unpersuasive.” Can an appellate court find facts persuasive or unpersuasive? We thought its role was not to substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder. And what standard of review was the court using to evaluate such evidence? Courts hold, factfinders find.