AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioner Nancy Henry initiated an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) enforcement action against the New Mexico Livestock Board and its Records Custodian, Jessica Baca, challenging the denial of her request for statutory damages under Section 14-2-11(C) of the IPRA.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by refusing to award mandatory statutory damages under Section 14-2-11(C) and contended entitlement to damages under both Sections 14-2-11(C) and 14-2-12(D), despite not requesting actual damages pursuant to Section 14-2-12(D) (para 2).
• Respondents-Appellees: Their submissions are not explicitly detailed, but it is implied they argued against the unreasonableness of their failure to comply with the IPRA, leading to the district court's decision not to award statutory damages to the petitioner (paras 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not awarding statutory damages to the petitioner under Section 14-2-11(C) of the IPRA.
• Whether the failure of the New Mexico Livestock Board to comply with the IPRA was unreasonable, warranting statutory damages.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the petitioner's request for statutory damages under Section 14-2-11(C) of the IPRA (para 1).

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, Chief Judge (HANISEE, J., and IVES, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals found that Section 14-2-11(C) does not mandate an award of statutory damages in every instance of non-compliance with the IPRA, but only when a district court determines such failure as unreasonable. The district court's finding that the New Mexico Livestock Board's delay in producing records—attributed to counsel's absence and intervening holidays—was reasonable, was not properly challenged by the petitioner for lack of substantial evidence. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the district court's discretion in refusing to award statutory damages, emphasizing that the petitioner did not present a viable argument against the district court's decision (paras 2-8).