SC AZ Lake Metadata

SC AZ Lake Metadata
Topic Started: Nov 4 2009, 09:43 PM (133 Views)
Tidbits	Nov 4 2009, 09:43 PM Post #1
Posts: 5,242 Group: Tier1 Member #141 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	¶ 1 Arizona law provides that “[p]ublic records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 39-121 (2001). The City of Phoenix denied a public records request for metadata in the electronic version of a public record. We today hold that if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws. ¶ 2 David Lake, a Phoenix police officer, filed an administrative complaint and federal lawsuit alleging employment discrimination by the City of Phoenix. He also submitted a public records request to the City, seeking notes kept by his supervisor, Lt. Robert Conrad, documenting Lake’s work performance. After reviewing paper copies of Conrad’s notes, Lake suspected that they had been backdated when prepared on a computer. Lake then requested “‘meta data’ or specific file information contained inside . . . [Conrad’s notes] file,” including “the TRUE creation date, the access date, the access dates for each time it was accessed, including who accessed the file as well as print dates etc.”1 The City denied the request, contending that metadata is not a public record under Mathews v. Pyle, 75 Ariz. 76, 251 P.2d 893 (1952).



Tidbits	Nov 4 2009, 09:44 PM Post #2
Posts: 5,242 Group: Tier1 Member #141 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Lake v Phoenix http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2009/CV090036PR.pdf 10-29-09



Quasimodo	Nov 4 2009, 10:27 PM Post #3
Posts: 4,932 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Good decision; but by the time the Durham suits begin, probably all of their records and data will have been "routinely destroyed".... ------------------------- (OT, but bump) Quote: Would it be possible to get the .pdf of the suit and initial grenade-throwing & chest-thumping? http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-vaedce/case_no-1:2009cv01085/case_id-246617/ It is of personal interest and I will gladly reimburse the associated costs. Hello from Zug, BTW. I have not posted in dog-years, but I have been following all y'all unrepentant, unapologetic blog hooligans. It surely does seem like the Duke/Durham fraud grain is being ground fine, but that will make the cake taste better. Best, Bob Swiss



MikeZPU	Nov 4 2009, 11:26 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,490 Group: Tier1 Member #92 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Thanks for posting this decision. Very interesting. I can't believe the lower courts ruled that the metadata was not a public record even if the corresponding document is a public record. I am glad that the AZ Supreme Court got it right. I hope they find out that Lake was right about his superior about making a-posteriori reports. Edited by MikeZPU, Nov 4 2009, 11:27 PM.



Baldo	Nov 5 2009, 10:49 AM Post #5
Posts: 8,554 Group: Tier2 Member #45 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	A couple of years old, but still timely. "You can't read them, if you don't write them" The DPD response to the Gell Case and Joe Cheshire. Edited by Baldo, Nov 5 2009, 10:50 AM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »