JUDICIAL WATCH INC v. KRISTEN MAYES

── JUDICIAL WATCH INC v. KRISTEN MAYES ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. KRISTIN K. MAYES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Defendants/Appellees. No. 2 CA-CV 2025-0322 Filed April 29, 2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2025005732 The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL David J. Hoffa, Phoenix Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General By Nancy M. Bonnell, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Heath Law PLLC, Scottsdale By Ryan L. Heath Counsel for Amicus Curiae Warren Petersen  JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. MAYES Opinion of the Court OPINION Judge Sklar authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Chief Judge Staring concurred. S K L A R, Judge: This case arises out of a special action in the trial court to compel disclosure of public records. Judicial Watch, Inc. sought documents from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office concerning its relationship with an entity called States United Democracy Fund. The request also encompassed States United’s predecessor, the Voter Protection Program. The court entered judgment against Judicial Watch, in favor of the attorney general and her office. The court apparently concluded that the office had provided a sufficient index of documents that it had withheld as privileged. The court also concluded that the office had adequately searched for responsive records. On appeal, Judicial Watch challenges both conclusions. As we explain below, we agree with Judicial Watch that neither the index nor the search was sufficient. We therefore vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND In December 2024, Judicial Watch submitted a public records request to the attorney general’s office seeking records from January 1, 2020, through the date of the office’s response. The records sought included: Any communications between [the attorney general’s office] and [States United Democracy Fund]. .... Any agreement or letter of engagement between SUDC and [the attorney general’s office]. .... 2  JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. MAYES Opinion of the Court Any communications between SUDC or [the Voter Protection Program] and any individual or entity, public or private, discussing, researching, mentioning, or illuding to the investigation or prosecution of Republican state electors or “fake electors” for the 2020 presidential election. Judicial Watch also requested an index of withheld records, pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D)(2). Shortly after receiving the request, the attorney general’s office furnished documents identified through a search of certain records dated January 1, 2023 and after. It informed Judicial Watch that additional responsive records had been withheld due to attorney-client and work-product privileges. The response also stated that the office was not aware of any correspondence with the Voter Protection Program but that it could conduct a search if more details were provided. Judicial Watch responded wit