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 the State of New Mexico Department of Information Technology (Plaintiff) and Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP along with A. Blair Dunn (Defendants), who appealed two summary judgments. These judgments were related to the Plaintiff's complaint seeking declaratory relief and a third-party complaint filed by Defendants. The core issue revolves around the custodianship and access to public records under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that it does not have legal authority or responsibility for the maintenance, care, or keeping of the public records in question, thus not a custodian of those records for purposes of IPRA.
• Defendants-Appellants: Contended that the Plaintiff “holds” the public records at issue on behalf of other state agencies and thus should be considered a custodian under IPRA.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff, in providing an email system, is responsible for the maintenance, care, or keeping of public records transmitted to and from other agencies by way of that email system, thus making it a custodian under IPRA.
• Whether Defendants’ third-party complaint asserting retaliation was properly dismissed.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the judgments entered below, concluding that the Plaintiff was not a custodian of the records in question for purposes of IPRA and dismissing Defendants' third-party complaint asserting retaliation.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Kristina Bogardus and concurred by Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and Judge Jane B. Yohalem, provided several reasons for their decision:
  The Court found that the Plaintiff does not have legal authority or responsibility for the maintenance, care, or keeping of the public records at issue, thus not qualifying as a custodian under IPRA (paras 2-5).
  Defendants failed to address the dispositive issue of whether Plaintiff is a custodian of those records. The Court emphasized that mere physical custody does not determine custodianship under IPRA (paras 3-5).
  Defendants did not meet their burden of establishing error in the district court's judgment or in the Court's proposed disposition. They did not specifically point out errors of law and fact in the Court's analysis (para 6).
  Regarding the third-party complaint for retaliation, the Court noted that Defendants did not address the alternative grounds for affirmance proposed by the Court, including the absolute defense of a favorable termination in the original proceeding and the fact that Plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory judgment sought no damages (paras 7-8).
  The Court concluded that Defendants failed to clearly point out errors in fact or law in their opposition to the proposed summary disposition, thus affirming the judgments entered below (para 9).