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 Plaintiff, Bryce Franklin, seeking documents under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) related to contracts involving the Lea County Corrections Facility from the Defendants, New Mexico Department of Corrections, Kevin Nault, and the Geo Group.

Procedural History

• Franklin, A-1-CA-40979, mem. op.: Summary judgment was affirmed in favor of the State Defendants, New Mexico Department of Corrections and Kevin Nault, as they complied with statutory provisions and made the requested materials available to Plaintiff (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that one of the affidavits provided by the State Defendants was made in bad faith and that some materials were not available in the library. The Plaintiff's response was unsupported by evidence beyond his own assertions (para 5).
• Defendants (Geo Group): Submitted a motion for summary judgment, arguing that all requested documents had been made available to Plaintiff and that any documents in their possession would not be different from those held by the State Defendants. This motion included an alternative argument based on the prior ruling that all requested documents had been made available (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Geo Group based on the argument that all requested documents had been made available to the Plaintiff and that any documents held by Geo Group would be duplicative of those held by the State Defendants (paras 3, 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant Geo Group (para 8).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Zachary A. Ives, Shammara H. Henderson, and Jane B. Yohalem, concluded that the Plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the State Defendants had made all requested materials available. The Court also found that the Plaintiff did not establish that Geo Group was in possession of any materials separate from those held by the State Defendants. The Court determined that the Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition did not clearly point out errors in fact or law in the proposed disposition. Therefore, the Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Geo Group, agreeing with the district court's reasoning and the prior ruling regarding the availability of the requested documents (paras 1-8).