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 involves an enforcement action under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) by two media outlets against the Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) Board of Education and its records custodian. The media outlets sought to inspect public records that were withheld by the Defendants, claiming exemptions under IPRA. The controversy centers around the abrupt resignation of Winston Brooks, the APS Superintendent, and the subsequent $350,000 buyout of his contract. A report prepared by attorney Agnes Padilla (the Padilla Report) at the request of the Board President was discussed in a closed session, leading to Brooks' resignation and settlement agreement. The media outlets filed an IPRA action to enforce their right to inspect the withheld records, including the Padilla Report, which Defendants claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege, among other exemptions (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees (Albuquerque Journal and KOB-TV, LLC): Argued that Defendants failed to show that the documents requested were exempt from disclosure under IPRA and sought to depose Maureen Sanders to prove waiver of privilege as to the Padilla Report (paras 5-6).
• Defendants (Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools and Rigo Chavez): Claimed that the records withheld, including the Padilla Report, are protected by attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or IPRA’s exception for matters of opinion in personnel files (para 5).
• Witness-Appellant (Maureen Sanders): Asserted that her communications with APS attorneys are protected under the attorney-client privilege due to a common interest shared by APS and Brooks, and alternatively refused to answer questions based on open meetings confidentiality (paras 6-7, 10-11).

Legal Issues

• Whether communications regarding "limited personnel matters" that occur during a closed public meeting are immune from discovery based on the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (para 17).
• Whether the attorney-client privilege protects the communications and notes of Maureen Sanders with APS’s attorneys based on a claimed common interest (paras 19-29).

Disposition

• The district court's discovery order requiring Maureen Sanders to answer Plaintiffs’ deposition questions and to produce notes she took during conversations claimed to be privileged was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• HANISEE, Judge: Concluded that there exists no OMA privilege in New Mexico and that Sanders failed to meet her burden of establishing the applicability of the attorney-client privilege based on a claimed common interest. The court differentiated between confidentiality and privilege, noting that Sanders did not provide a factual basis to find a common interest between APS and Brooks. The court also addressed Defendants' additional arguments, finding them without merit or not properly before the court in this interlocutory appeal (paras 17-34).