“The parties have agreed to hold in abeyance the issue of whether this Court can or should review documents in camera. The issue can be raised by either party in the future. The Court also will not address the issue of the sufficiency of the privilege log at this time since this ruling will eliminate most if not all of the entries claiming legislative privilege. AO may again raise this issue depending upon Senate Defendants’ compliance with this ruling. This ruling significantly narrows the universe of documents and communications that are permissively privileged.”

“The legislative privilege does not apply with the exception of documents withheld on grounds of confidentiality , privacy or the best interests of the State if those interests outweigh the public’s interest in access to those records. This is narrow indeed and must be specifically outlined in the privilege log. The audit was not an integral part of a deliberative process, the withheld information is not tethered to proposed legislation, and there is no showing that disclosure of the records sought would impair legislative deliberations. There is no deliberative process underway. AO’s interest, on behalf of the public at large, significantly outweighs the Senate Defendants’ interest in non-disclosure. The audit challenges whether there was an election free of fraud, corruption or incompetence. The stakes could not be higher and transparency, which is at the heart of the PRL, substantially outweighs any concern regarding chilling future legislative deliberations. Arizona public records law creates a presumption requiring the disclosure of public documents. Senate Defendants clearly waived any claim to immunity or privilege. The Motion to Compel is granted with the qualifications outlined in this Docket” says the decision in the watchdog American Oversight’s case to compel disclosure of the Arizona State Senate’s records related to the Maricopa “audit”.