Phoenix Had the Records in 23 Days. It Released Them 17 Months Later.
At an October 26 evidentiary hearing, Judge Randall H. Warner asked the City's records analyst whether the 17-month delay in releasing Councilmember Laura Pastor's records was “entirely on the city's part.” He answered, “Right.” The judge took the case under advisement.
On October 26, 2026, Judge Randall H. Warner of the Maricopa County Superior Court held a three-hour evidentiary hearing in Thacker v. City of Phoenix and Laura Pastor (CV2025-007652). The case is over records of communications between Councilmember Laura Pastor's office and parties to the 22-story rezoning at Central and Glenrosa. Two City witnesses testified: Matthew Martin, a public records request analyst, and Cooper Payne, the Council's former public information officer. The judge took the matter under advisement and said he will issue a written ruling.
GOOD|GOAT Member Jeremy Thacker is the plaintiff. The quotes below come from GOOD|GOAT's working transcript of the hearing. It has not been certified or checked against the official recording, so we quote only passages that are not marked for audio review.
Read the working transcript of the October 26 hearing (PDF, 51 pages). It is a working transcript, not the official court record. GOOD|GOAT redacted a personal email address and one exchange marked for audio review.
Gathered in 23 Days. Released 17 Months Later.
The City's own GovQA logs, which its lawyer walked through on the stand, show that staff had collected the Councilmember's text messages by October 23, 2023, 23 days after the requests. Both department liaisons had closed their tasks by October 24. The records were not made available to Thacker until March 5, 2025, days after he filed suit.
Asked whether he knew the reason for the delay, Martin said, “I do not.” He agreed he was the person responsible for releasing the records. Judge Warner then put the question to him directly:
“But you agree that the delay is entirely on the city's part. It's not because of what he did.” Martin: “Right.”
In closing, the City's lawyer, Steve Coleman, told the court: “admittedly, there were some mistakes made in the process. We know that because documents didn't get produced for 17 months.”
Thacker had warned the City through its own portal. In May 2024 he wrote: “This request has been open for seven months. If it is not fulfilled by the end of next week, I'll be filing a claim for denial of my PRR.” Those notes went to Martin's inbox. Asked what he did, Martin said he didn't recall. Asked what he would have done, he said he would have followed up and alerted City leadership and the Law Department: “We need to get this out the door. Otherwise, it's going to be a lawsuit.”
No Record of How the City Searched
Martin's sworn affidavit states that he does “not recall and the city does not have a record of the precise search criteria or methodology used to search for responsive records.” He confirmed it on the stand. A search nobody can reconstruct is a search nobody, including a court, can check.
A “High Profile” List
Martin testified that staff watch for requests from “people we know that have filed litigation against the city before… so that city leadership could be notified if they submitted a new request.” He confirmed the list included Thacker. Plaintiff's Exhibit 33, a March 14, 2025 email between Communications Office staff, describes a high-profile list of requesters whose requests get a note in the system and are forwarded as an FYI. The list also names Dave Biscobing, a news reporter who covers police issues in Phoenix. The City pointed out that the email came after the lawsuit. Martin said he was “not aware of such a list being existing outside of this one occurrence.”
Officials Check Their Own Phones
Payne, the Council's records liaison, testified that he did not search anyone's phone himself; he relied on the Councilmember's office to report its own text messages. Asked whether any safeguard makes sure responsive records were actually searched for and produced, he said: “Not to my knowledge.”
Plaintiff's Exhibit 47, admitted at the hearing, is a February 2022 email from lobbyist Wendy Riddell of Berry Riddell: “I have been texting with Laura and I would love to set up a meeting to visit with her about project at Glen Rosa and Central.” No texts between Riddell and Pastor were produced. The City argued the texts may have been personal, and that a one-year retention period would have deleted them before the requests were made. Thacker answered that the Councilmember “doesn't establish the retention period.”
“What's the Consequence of That?”
Judge Warner pressed the City on what the law does when records are delayed until they are gone:
“If somebody sends the city a request, two reminders, and then has to file a lawsuit before the documents are produced, what's the consequence of that? Or is your view of the public records law, oh, well, no harm, no foul?”
“What incentive do governmental entities have to preserve documents like the statute says they have to, to search for documents and not destroy them like the statute says they have to, if the consequence for doing so is nothing?”
“This is not my first case where I've asked exactly those questions,” he added. The City's standard email retention is 90 days.
What Happens Next
The matter is under advisement. GOOD|GOAT will report the written ruling when it is issued.
Follow the full case: Thacker v. Phoenix & Pastor.