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 submitted two Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) requests to the Defendant, Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD), seeking information that included the names, email addresses, and physical addresses of CYFD licensed foster parents. The Defendant redacted this personally identifying information from its responses, citing an exemption under IPRA and a regulation that deemed such information confidential (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of CYFD, adopting CYFD’s view that IPRA’s catchall “as otherwise provided by law” exception incorporated the CYFD Regulation making foster parent identifying information confidential (para 8).
• District Court of Bernalillo County (on reconsideration): Reversed its prior judgment and entered a final judgment for Plaintiff, finding persuasive the Plaintiff's argument that Sections 14-2-6(F) and 14-2-1.1 provided the exclusive list of personally identifying information exempt from inspection under IPRA (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the names, email addresses, and physical addresses of foster parents must be made available for inspection under IPRA, contending that the list of “protected personal identifier information” under Sections 14-2-6(F) and 14-2-1.1 is exclusive and supersedes any agency regulation making additional personally identifying information confidential (paras 4, 6).
• Defendant (CYFD): Contended that the redaction of “protected personal identifier information” before inspection was not intended by the Legislature to restrict the application of the catchall, “as otherwise provided by law” exception, and that CYFD’s regulation protecting the personally identifying information of foster parents is enforceable under this exception (paras 1, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the names, email addresses, and physical addresses of CYFD licensed foster parents are exempt from disclosure under IPRA’s catchall “as otherwise provided by law” exception (para 1).
• Whether Sections 14-2-6(F) and 14-2-1.1 provide the exclusive list of personally identifying information that may be exempted from inspection by a public agency under IPRA, superseding any agency regulation (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court, concluding that CYFD’s regulation protecting the personally identifying information of foster parents has the force of law and is enforceable under the “as otherwise provided by law” exception to IPRA (para 32).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Yohalem, found that the Legislature did not intend Sections 14-2-6(F) and 14-2-1.1 to restrict or replace any of the exceptions incorporated by the catchall “as otherwise provided by law” exception. The court determined that the plain language of IPRA does not support the Plaintiff’s construction of these sections. It also concluded that CYFD’s regulation serves the statutory purpose of protecting the confidentiality of children and families in CYFD’s care, as mandated by statute, and therefore has the force of law under the catchall exception to IPRA (paras 22-31). Judge Medina concurred with the opinion, while Judge Henderson dissented, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in granting Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration based on non-binding and distinguishable authority (paras 34-48).