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

• Nancy Henry, a citizen journalist and advocate focusing on estray and wild horses, submitted multiple requests to the New Mexico Livestock Board (the Board) for the disclosure of public records relevant to her work. The Board withheld four documents, claiming they were exempt from disclosure under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA). These documents included emails between the Board’s general counsel and the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) regarding the incarceration of wild horses and communications about selling a herd, as well as a report of a disciplinary investigation of a Board employee and an email advising Board staff to have no contact with Henry or another party opposing the Board in litigation (paras 4-9).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Malott, District Court Judge: Ordered the Board to disclose the four documents withheld, concluding they were not exempt from disclosure under IPRA. Denied Henry’s request for compensatory damages and attorney fees but allowed her costs as the prevailing party (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee (New Mexico Livestock Board): Argued that three of the documents were subject to attorney-client privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under IPRA, and the fourth document, a report of a disciplinary investigation, was also exempt as it was a matter of opinion in a personnel file (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant (Nancy Henry): Contended that the Board failed to provide a sufficient explanation for refusing to disclose the four documents, thereby justifying an award of per diem statutory damages under IPRA (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the three documents claimed by the Board to be subject to attorney-client privilege are indeed exempt from disclosure under IPRA.
• Whether the report of a disciplinary investigation is exempt from disclosure under IPRA as a matter of opinion in a personnel file.
• Whether Henry is entitled to per diem statutory damages for the Board’s failure to provide a sufficient explanation for its refusal to disclose the documents.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order requiring disclosure of the four documents, agreeing with the Board that all four are exempt from disclosure under IPRA.
• The Court of Appeals did not address the merits of Henry’s cross-appeal regarding per diem damages, concluding that Henry did not adequately preserve the issue for review (paras 3, 46).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with an opinion by Judge Yohalem, concurred by Judges Hanisee and Medina, found that:
  The emails between the Board’s general counsel and the OAG were protected by attorney-client privilege as they were made for the purpose of facilitating legal services to the Board, including discussions of facts relevant to legal services being provided (paras 14-21, 22-26).
  The email advising Board staff to have no contact with Henry or another party was also protected by attorney-client privilege as it provided legal advice concerning pending litigation to staff members who must act on that advice (paras 27-36).
  The report of the disciplinary investigation was exempt from disclosure as a matter of opinion in a personnel file, consistent with the purpose of determining whether to take disciplinary action against an employee (paras 37-41).
  Regarding Henry’s cross-appeal for per diem damages, the Court found that Henry failed to preserve this issue for appeal by not requesting statutory damages under Section 14-2-11(C) based on the denial of the four requests at issue in this appeal (paras 42-45).