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

• The Plaintiff, an animal welfare activist, sought to inspect public records related to the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and its Animal Cruelty Task Force (AGACT), suspecting mishandling of animal cruelty cases and unauthorized law enforcement authority by a private citizen appointed as AGACT's coordinator. After partial compliance and alleged withholding of responsive records by the AGO, the Plaintiff discovered additional responsive records had been provided to the State Auditor but not to her, leading to the filing of this action (paras 2-11).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court ruled that the Plaintiff is entitled only to actual damages, attorney fees, and costs under Section 14-2-12 of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), excluding statutory damages of up to $100 per day under Section 14-2-11 (para 14).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the AGO violated IPRA by failing to produce all responsive records and by not complying with procedures for denied requests outlined in Section 14-2-11(B), seeking statutory damages of up to $100 per day in addition to attorney fees and costs under Section 14-2-12(D) (para 12).
• Defendant (AGO): Contended that the initial failure to produce documents was inadvertent and argued that because it responded to the Plaintiff’s IPRA request within fifteen days, only attorney fees and costs are recoverable under Section 14-2-12, excluding statutory damages under Section 14-2-11(C) (para 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding that the Plaintiff’s action proceeds under Section 14-2-12, thereby limiting the damages the Plaintiff can recover to actual damages under Subsection (D) of that provision (para 19).
• Whether a public body that issues a perfunctory response and eventually allows inspection of some, but not all, nonexempt public records is subject to Section 14-2-11’s statutory damages (para 26).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the AGO and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Plaintiff is not categorically foreclosed from recovering damages under Section 14-2-11 (para 41).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court misapplied Faber and misinterpreted the damages provisions of IPRA in a manner inconsistent with the legislation’s overarching purpose. It concluded that incomplete or inadequate responses to IPRA requests are not in compliance with IPRA, and such cases may proceed under both Sections 14-2-11 and 14-2-12. The court emphasized that Section 14-2-11 and Section 14-2-12 damages are not mutually exclusive and remanded the case for the district court to determine the reasonableness of the AGO’s failure to permit inspection of all nonexempt responsive records (paras 24-41).