Date: 11-06-2025

Case Style: Russell Jones v. City of Tempe, et al.

Case Number: CV2024-005836

Judge: Scott Sebastian Minder

Court: Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: Tempe, Arizona City Attorney's Office

Description: Phoenix, Arizona civil litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement for attorney fees expended in an effort to obtain body-camera footage of his arrest.

Jones was arrested by the Tempe Police Department in October 2023. In December, Jones submitted a public records request for, among other things, the arresting officers' body-worn camera ("BWC") footage. Tempe filed criminal charges against him three days later.

Tempe processes public records requests for BWC footage in the order they are received. Each officer's BWC footage must be reviewed at least twice in "real time," once to redact audio and once to redact video. Requests can range from a single, minutes-long video to dozens of videos involving hours of footage. This means a single request can take a reviewer anywhere from a few hours to multiple weeks to process. Tempe typically employs two specialists trained to redact BWC footage, but at the time of Jones' request, one specialist had retired, and Tempe had not yet been able to hire a replacement. Accordingly, the personnel shortage, time-intensive redaction process, and volume of requests led to a backlog of approximately 330 pending public records requests for BWC footage at the time Jones filed his request.

In March 2024, Tempe informed Jones that due to the backlog and personnel shortage, it estimated his request for BWC footage would not be completed until the end of the year but could be expedited if he sought a subpoena.

Tempe soon provided Jones with all requested records except for the BWC footage. Two days later, Jones filed a special action to compel production of the BWC footage, arguing Tempe failed to "promptly respond" to his request as required under Section 39-121.01(E).

At a status conference in early April, Tempe informed Jones that he would receive the same BWC footage, unredacted, as part of his criminal case. Indeed, he received the unredacted BWC footage a few weeks later. Jones then filed an application for attorney fees under Section 39-121.02(B).

* * *

Legal issue Is the denial of attorney fees justified when there is a delay in producing public records due to personnel shortages and other reasonable circumstances?

Key Phrases Attorney fees denial. Public records request. Body-worn camera footage. Substantially prevailed. Abuse of discretion.

Outcome: Request for reimbursement of attorney fees denied.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: