is whether the MCSO failed to promptly produce the records for each request submitted by the New Times. If it did, then, pursuant to the requirements of the statute, it denied access to public records and the superior court had discretion to award attorneys’ fees. ¶ 14 Although Arizona law requires that the documents be promptly furnished, it does not specify a specific number of days from the request by which time a public body must furnish the documents. We have previously defined “prompt” in this context as being “quick to act” or producing the requested records “without delay.” West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 216 Ariz. 225, 230, ¶ 21, 165 P.3d 203, 208 (App.2007) (quoting Webster’s New World Dictionary 1137 (2d ed.1980)). In W 335, 690 P.2d 51, 54 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice,
holding that where complaint seeks greater damages than counterclaim and court denied relief to both parties there is no successful party holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that where a party has made a prior statement inconsistent with the one the party seeks to advance at trial a question of credibility arises which is for the jury not the judge to assess holding that the burden of showing that a harm will result from disclosure is on the party that seeks nondisclosure rather than on the party that seeks access holding that the burden of showing unreasonableness must be on the recipient who seeks to avoid compliance