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 case revolves around a dispute concerning the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) and involves a $26.50 charge by the New Mexico State Land Office for providing electronic copies of public records. The agency intended to charge this amount for the staff time it takes to upload electronic records to Dropbox, a file-sharing platform, to make them available to the Petitioner. The Petitioner contested this charge, leading to the filing of a lawsuit (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in interpreting Section 14-2-9(C)(3) of the IPRA, claiming that the state agency should not charge for reformatting records when the Legislature only authorized charges for downloading records. The Petitioner views reformatting and downloading as distinct actions with different associated costs (para 2).
• Respondent-Appellee: Asserted that the $26.50 charge was for the actual cost associated with making the requested public records available for the Petitioner to download, which involved uploading the records to Dropbox. The Respondent described this process as involving staff time to upload the records from the agency’s network servers to Dropbox (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in interpreting Section 14-2-9(C)(3) of the IPRA in allowing a state agency to charge for reformatting records for electronic delivery via Dropbox, where the Legislature authorized the agency to charge for downloading records (para 2).

Disposition

• The summary judgment in favor of the Respondent-Appellee was affirmed (para 7).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, with JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge, and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The Court found that the Petitioner’s docketing statement did not adequately summarize material facts relevant to the issues presented, leading to a presumption of correctness of the trial court’s rulings. The Court also noted that the Petitioner failed to properly raise material issues of disputed fact in response to the motion for summary judgment. Upon reviewing the arguments and the statute in question, the Court concluded that the $26.50 charge represented the actual costs associated with providing the requested public records for the Petitioner to download, as allowed under Section 14-2-9(C)(3) of the IPRA. The Court determined that the activities involved in making the records available, including uploading to Dropbox, fell within the scope of "actual costs associated with" downloading records as per the statute (paras 1-6).