court concluded that the MCSO did not wrongfully deny the requested documents to the New Times because it produced them, albeit after the New Times filed a special action seeking production. But, that the documents were eventually provided is not the end of the inquiry. ¶ 12 Unlike public information statutes in some other jurisdictions, Arizona’s statute specifies that when records are subject to disclosure the required response is the prompt and actual production of the documents. “Any person may request to examine or be furnished copies ... of any public record.... The custodian of such records shall promptly furnish such copies, printouts or photographs....” A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D)(1) (emphasis added); see also Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1, 5, ¶ 13, 156 P.3d 418, 422 (2007) (<HOLDING>). The statute further specifies that to the
holding that the burden fell squarely upon the maricopa county attorney as a public official to overcome the legal presumption favoring disclosure recognizing a strong presumption favoring arbitrability holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant holding that the public records act does not mandate disclosure of records protected by tennessee rule of criminal procedure 16 holding that if a document falls within the scope of the public records statute then the presumption favoring disclosure applies