{"id":5186,"date":"2017-09-20T11:35:12","date_gmt":"2017-09-20T16:35:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=5186"},"modified":"2017-09-20T11:45:09","modified_gmt":"2017-09-20T16:45:09","slug":"az-appeals-court-vacates-ruling-against-climate-scientists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2017\/09\/20\/az-appeals-court-vacates-ruling-against-climate-scientists\/","title":{"rendered":"Arizona Appeals Court Vacates Ruling Against Climate Scientists, and Rules that Protections for Scientific Research Must Be Considered"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On September 14, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division II, ruled that<\/a> a trial court decision to release climate scientists\u2019 emails had improperly ignored an Arizona statutory protection for university records. \u00a0In this case, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (\u201cE&E Legal\u201d) has been attempting to use open records laws to obtain a 13 year span of emails from two University of Arizona climate scientists. This ruling returns the case to the trial court for a consideration of whether the statutory protection applies to the emails sought here.<\/p>\n

State and federal open records laws promote government accountability by allowing citizens to request copies of administrative records, but these powerful tools can also be misused<\/a> \u201cto harass and intimidate scientists and other academic researchers, or to disrupt and delay their work.\u201d \u00a0Overly intrusive open records requests, particularly for emails, can discourage the candid exchange of ideas (including \u201cdevil\u2019s advocate\u201d arguments and \u201cwhat if\u201d debates), and provide opportunities for hostile actors to take phrases, including scientific jargon, out of context in order to mislead and confuse the public.\u00a0 Climate scientists in particular have\u00a0been subjected<\/a>\u00a0to \u201cinformation attacks<\/a>\u201d by a \u201cnetwork of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this case, E&E Legal initiated its open records request in December 2011, seeking a 13 year span of emails from University of Arizona climate scientists Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck.\u00a0 E&E Legal describes its work as \u201cfree market environmentalism\u201d and claims that release of these emails is necessary for its \u201ctransparency project<\/a>\u201d into uncovering potential misconduct by climate scientists.\u00a0 In its Amended Complaint, E&E Legal claimed that certain emails stolen in the so-called \u201cClimategate\u201d hacking in 2009, involving these two University of Arizona scientists and others, indicated misdeeds needing further scrutiny.\u00a0 Of course, all official investigations related to \u201cClimategate\u201d have shown no misconduct<\/a> and the episode is now seen as a \u201cmanufactured controversy<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The University of Arizona produced some emails, and withheld thousands of others, claiming that these emails \u2013 which included peer-review commentary, preliminary drafts, and candid debates with colleagues \u2013 should not be produced under Arizona law.\u00a0 The two main protections claimed by the University:<\/p>\n