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, Tim Allison, requested contract law firm billing invoices from the New Mexico General Services Department (GSD) related to a settled federal district court case, Kretschmer v. New Mexico Livestock Board. The GSD, through Susan Bergman, provided fifty-two pages of attorney invoices with 204 line-item entries, redacting fifteen entries that described services rendered as attorney-client communications and attorney work product. Allison challenged these redactions as contrary to the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), seeking the material without redaction (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Roosevelt County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Susan Bergman, finding the redacted portions of the invoices exempt from disclosure under IPRA due to attorney-client privilege (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the redactions were contrary to IPRA and requested the court to order the GSD to produce the requested material without redaction (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the redacted material was attorney-client privileged and protected attorney work product, thus exempt from IPRA’s disclosure requirement (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding that the redacted invoice entries were not public records subject to IPRA’s disclosure requirement (para 7).
• Whether the district court correctly determined that the redacted material was attorney-client privileged and/or protected attorney work product (para 8).
• Whether the district court should have applied the precedent set in Schein v. Northern Rio Arriba Electric Cooperative, Inc. to the case at hand (para 12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Susan Bergman, upholding the exemption of the redacted portions of the invoices from disclosure under IPRA due to attorney-client privilege (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, found that:
  The district court did not err in its determination that the invoices were public records but upheld the redactions as attorney-client privileged and/or protected attorney work product (paras 7-8).
  The appellant's arguments, including the misapplication of Schein v. Northern Rio Arriba Electric Cooperative, Inc., did not merit reversal. The court distinguished the present case from Schein, noting that corporate documents subject to attorney-client privilege may be withheld from shareholders, and by extension, the redacted material in this case was correctly deemed confidential and privileged (paras 12-14).
  The appellant failed to provide sufficient legal authority or developed argument to persuade the court that the district court’s rulings were erroneous, particularly regarding the applicability of attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine to the redacted invoice entries (paras 9-11).