See our previous blog when this case of the tripping customer was decided at the court of appeals. As expected, the Arizona Supreme Court holds the issue is not duty because a duty is owed to an invitee. The issue is whether the duty was breached. Because Circle K’s motion was based on duty, and the trial court decided only the duty issue, the case is remanded for the trial court to consider the alleged breach. The court clarifies its Dinsmoor decision, which discusses case-specific facts in determining duty. This specific facts inquiry asks “when and where the alleged risk of harm arose –within or outside the scope of the special relationship –not whether the alleged risk actually constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition.”  The court gives a nod to the concurring opinion in the court of appeals. Undoubtedly, Circle K will file another summary judgment motion on breach and causation. Because the right-for-any-reason rule cannot apply when the issue was not raised, the parties must go through the exercise again.

link to opinion

A brief opinion on misbehavior during a deposition. In a personal injury case, Plaintiff’s counsel Brett Donaldson instructed his client not to answer questions regarding citations for the accident. Donaldson then argued with defense counsel and cast aspersions on her. When the issue came before the trial court, Donaldson’s behavior had not improved, and he continually interrupted the trial court. The trial court issued sanctions and ordered a second deposition. Donaldson then filed a special action challenging the sanctions. The court of appeals accepted jurisdiction, denied relief, and affirmed the sanctions. Since this is a published opinion, Donaldson has now enshrined his bad behavior and hubris.

link to opinion

Division Two has been busy with public records denials. In Sierra Club v. Salt River Project, the appellate court considered whether the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) is a public entity under the public records statute. The court next considered whether the requested information was protected as competitive activity information unde3r A.R.S. § 30-805. Through several public records requests, The Sierra Club sought information regarding the expansion of the Coolidge Generating Station. Sierra Club opposed the expansion and while doing so, learned there was a study with an external consultant regarding the expansion. SRP produced presentation slides and documents but withheld others. The slides were produced under a protective order limiting the Sierra Club’s use of the slides to the dispute before the corporation commission and the issuance of a certificate of environmental compatibility. Sierra Club asked that the slides be re-disclosed as a public record, and SRP ignored the request. In the trial court and on appeal, SRP contended it is not a public body because it is not a “tax-supported district” as defined under the Public Records Law, A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(2). SRP further contended the information fell under the competitive activity exception. The appellate court followed the rules of the road on statutory interpretation holding SRP is a public entity subject to the public records law. As for the competitive activity information exception, the court rejected SRP’s contention that a separate statute A.R.S. § 40-204 (a confidentiality provision for information provide to the corporation commission by public service corporations) is swept up in the sensitive information exception. The court of appeals remanded the case because the trial court did not examine and make factual findings as to whether the competitive activity statute applies to each of the records. One bothersome point about this opinion. The court cited dictionaries for the words “similar,” “entity,” “advantage,” and “any.” Why? We have previously expressed criticism when courts unnecessarily cite dictionary definitions and use these as scaffolding when constructing an opinion.

link to the opinion

The second public records case is Abraham v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents. While public records are entitled to a presumption of disclosure, records may be withheld or redacted based on “countervailing interests of confidentiality, privacy or the best interests of the state.” That language comes from Carlson v. Pima County. Abraham sought numerous records of committee meetings, hiring practices, etc.  In response, the university informed the court that a recording of one of the committee meetings had been destroyed. Any damage remedy for this, however, was subject to dismissal because Abraham never filed a notice of claim. Additionally, challenging the university’s response to the withholding of other records must be within the one-year statute of limitations for actions against governmental entities. Only one denial was within the statute of limitations. After the court made its way through procedural issues, the court reached the substantive issue of the countervailing interests of confidentiality, privacy, or best interests of the state. The court directed trial courts when conducting this analysis to review the sufficiency and specificity of harm and then address whether individual records were withheld to prevent that specific harm.  The court held the reasons for withholding information met these criteria. This included surveys, job applications, and other records regarding the hiring of candidates. The court then denied Abraham’s fee request that he was entitled to fees because he had obtained some additional records before litigation after challenging the initial denial letters. Abraham lost the litigated issues and was not a prevailing party. The opinion is far too long. We do not need such detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning.

link to the opinion