Citizens Requested Records. They Got Recorded Instead.
Phoenix's records system answered none of Jeremy Thacker's follow-ups. The City's own exhibits show it was logging him the whole time: 95 viewing events under his name, down to the second.
When Jeremy Thacker filed two public records requests with the City of Phoenix on September 30, 2023, the City's portal acknowledged them automatically. Then it went quiet. He sent follow-ups. One of them, in May 2024, warned that he would file a claim if the records didn't arrive. None of them got a response until after he sued in early 2025.
The portal was not idle, though. It was recording him.
GOOD|GOAT Member Jeremy Thacker is the plaintiff in Thacker v. City of Phoenix and Laura Pastor, and the requester in these logs. This is our second story from the October 26, 2026 evidentiary hearing; the first is Phoenix Had the Records in 23 Days. It Released Them 17 Months Later. The figures below were counted directly from the City's exhibits. The quotes come from GOOD|GOAT's working transcript, which has not been checked against the official recording.
What the City's Own Exhibits Show
Defendant's Exhibits 9 and 14, which the City entered at the hearing, are exports of the request histories kept by GovQA, Phoenix's public records system. They log each time Thacker's account opened either request. For one request, they also log which individual documents he opened, by file name and to the second.
Activity logged under Thacker's name:
- Request R004767-093023 (Def. Ex. 9): 29 views of the request, 4 messages, and the original submission.
- Request R004768-093023 (Def. Ex. 14): 36 views of the request, 30 views of individual documents, 4 messages, and the original submission.
In all, the two exports attribute 95 viewing events to Thacker by name, separate from his eight messages and two original submissions.
The detail goes down to the second. On March 5, 2025, the day the City finally released records, the log shows him opening request R004768-093023. Twenty-five seconds later it records nine document views over eight seconds, each naming the file: the email PDF and individual text-message screenshots. The same pattern appears again on July 18, 2025 and June 20, 2026.
For Months, the Only Activity Was His
At the hearing, Thacker's attorney, Joshua Carden, walked the City's records analyst, Matthew Martin, through the R004767-093023 log. After Thacker's May 2024 warning, Carden said, “there does not appear to be other activity from anyone but Mr. Thacker viewing the request until March 5th of 2025.” Martin answered: “Right.” The export bears it out. From May 24, 2024 to March 5, 2025, every entry on that request is Thacker's.
Martin also testified that each note Thacker posted generated a notification to him, and he did not recall acting on any of them. He agreed that GovQA logs the steps taken on a request, and said that he or a coworker exported the spreadsheets.
Thacker described what he saw from his side of the portal:
“Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a single response until we filed the lawsuit despite repeated requests for status updates.”
For 17 months, Phoenix's system logged a resident's visits in detail, and answered none of his follow-ups.
Why a Visit Log Matters
A named access history shows what a person returned to, when and how often. That is a record of attention and interest, and it goes beyond anything the City needs in order to fill a request. Phoenix kept this record for Thacker and exported it for litigation.
The same hearing produced a City email listing “high profile” public records requesters, Thacker and an investigative reporter among them, for notes in the system and FYIs to leadership (Plaintiff's Exhibit 33). These are separate facts. Together they raise questions the City has not answered: who at the City can see requesters' visit histories, how long it keeps them, whether requesters are told, and whether anyone looks.
What the Logs Don't Show
The exports show that GovQA kept Thacker's activity and that the City could export it. They do not show that staff watched his visits as they happened. They don't show how long he spent reading a document, or whether a burst of document views reflects deliberate review or the way the portal loads files. They contain no IP addresses, device data or location, and nothing from outside the portal.
Logging can have ordinary purposes, such as troubleshooting access or confirming that released files were opened. Those purposes don't settle the open questions: how long the logs are kept, who can see them, what notice requesters get, and what else the logs may be used for.
Questions for the City
GOOD|GOAT is putting these questions to the City of Phoenix:
- Does GovQA log every requester's portal visits and document views by name? Since when, and is that the default setting?
- How long are requester activity logs kept, and under what retention schedule?
- Which City staff can view or export a requester's activity history?
- Can GovQA alert staff when a particular requester visits or opens a document, and has that ever been set up?
- Are requesters told that their activity is logged? Where is that disclosed?
- Has requester activity data ever been used outside litigation, for example in connection with the “high profile” list?
We will publish the City's answers, and Judge Warner's ruling in the case, when we have them.
Follow the full case: Thacker v. Phoenix & Pastor.