Boulanger v. Rio Rancho Pub. Sch.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-36953,A-1-CA-36953 |
| Parties | KAREN BOULANGER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RIO RANCHO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY
Law Office of Jonlyn M. Martinez, LLC
Jonlyn M. Martinez
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP
Charlotte H. Hetherington
Jacque Archuleta-Staehlin
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
{1} In this civil action to enforce provisions of the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12 (1947, as amended through 2019), Defendant Rio Rancho Public Schools (RRPS) seeks reversal of two orders issued by the district court related to a discovery dispute between RRPS and Plaintiff Karen Boulanger. We affirm.
{2} This appeal stems from a nearly year-long attempt by Boulanger to secure discovery responses from RRPS, and the district court's order granting Boulanger's motion to compel and order holding RRPS in contempt that resulted therefrom. On January 13, 2017, Boulanger, an employee of RRPS, was placed on paid leave and told that her employment contract would not be renewed. On January 18, 2017 and January 25, 2017, Boulanger submitted written requests under IPRA to RRPS requesting inspection of certain documents related to her employment with the RRPS. RRPS produced responsive documents in February 2017, but Boulanger was dissatisfied with the production and on March 8, 2017, she filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that RRPS failed to respond to her IPRA requests in a timely manner and failed to produce the records requested.
{3} Thereafter, Boulanger served RRPS with interrogatories and requests for production. Dissatisfied with RRPS's answers and responses, on June 8, 2017, Boulanger filed a motion asking the district court to compel answers and responses to all of the interrogatories and the requests for production. Following a hearing on the matter, the district court granted the motion, and held, "[a]ll [o]bjections and privileges having been waived, [RRPS] shall provide complete responses to [Boulanger']s [i]nterrogatories and [r]equests for [p]roduction by September 14, 2017." In addition, the district court ordered RRPS to pay Boulanger for the fees incurred in connection with obtaining the order to compel. On September 14, 2017, the day the complete responses were due, counsel for RRPS contacted counsel for Boulanger and stated that RRPS was "[un]able to review and produce" certain documents, and "unable to complete . . . answers to the [i]nterrogatories." RRPS then served amended responses to Boulanger's requests for production, which sought belatedly to add objections to the responses. Boulanger filed a motion for order to show cause, alleging that RRPS "failed to comply with the [c]ourt's [August 31, 2017 o]rder[,] by failing to provide responsive emails[,] by failing to provide appropriate responses to [Boulanger]'s [i]nterrogatories . . . [and by] includ[ing] objections in its [amended] responses" to Boulanger's requests for production. The district court subsequently issued an order holding RRPS in contempt and ordered:
Except for those objections related to confidential student and employee information, specifically, under FERPA, IDEA and personal information such [as] social security numbers, all other objections and privileges having been waived, as previously ordered, [RRPS] shall provide complete responses to [Boulanger']s [i]nterrogatories and [r]equests for [p]roduction[.]
The court further ordered "defense counsel . . . not [to] bill [RRPS] for any time spent reviewing [documents] for attorney client privilege, and for creation of the privilege log, given that the privilege had already been waived." The district court also ordered counsel for RRPS to meet with counsel for Boulanger to determine how best to conduct an electronic search for the information and documents sought by the discovery responses. Finally, the district court ordered RRPS to pay $100 per day each day the other responsive documents were withheld, and ordered RRPS to pay Boulanger'sattorney fees incurred in connection with obtaining the order holding RRPS in contempt. On January 5, 2018, RRPS filed a writ of error with this court, and this appeal followed.1
{4} On appeal, RRPS alleges that (1) it did not waive its objections and privileges in responding to discovery; (2) the district court abused its discretion in ordering discovery beyond the scope of the original IPRA requests and failing to conduct an in camera review before ordering disclosure; (3) the district court's contempt order should be reversed because it inappropriately awarded "damages" and attorney fees; and (4) the portion of the contempt order directing RRPS not to charge for services rendered by RRPS's counsel is arbitrary and capricious.
{5} "We review a district court's discovery orders for an abuse of discretion." Villalobos v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2014-NMCA-044, ¶ 14, 322 P.3d 439. "[W]e [also] review sanctions imposed by the [district] court for discovery violations and violations of court orders for an abuse of discretion." Sanchez v. Borrego, 2004-NMCA-033, ¶ 10, 135 N.M. 192, 86 P.3d 617. Consequently, "we will [only] disturb the [district] court's ruling . . . when the trial court's decision is clearly untenable or contrary to logic and reason." Id.
{6} RRPS argues that it did not waive its objections and privileges in responding to Boulanger's discovery requests. RRPS's principal argument is that it met its obligations in responding to Boulanger's prelitigation IPRA requests, and that it then preserved the objections and assertions of privilege made therein when responding to Boulanger's discovery requests during litigation.
{7} We begin by noting that whether RRPS waived its objections and assertions of privilege in response to Boulanger's discovery requests is a question guided by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and not by the provisions of IPRA. IPRA and the Rules of Civil Procedure are wholly separate mechanisms. IPRA is a statutory scheme established bythe Legislature which codifies the right of the public to inspect public records with certain exceptions. See generally § 14-2-1. A member of the public may file an IPRA request at any time, regardless of whether that person is involved in a lawsuit. See generally id. In contrast, the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to "all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity except . . . where there are contrary statutory provisions concerning special statutory or summary proceedings." Rule 1-001(A) NMRA. An action to enforce the provisions of IPRA is not a "special statutory or summary proceeding[]" within the meaning of Rule 1-001(A). See id. comm. cmt. (defining "Special Proceedings" and "Summary Proceedings"). Thus, the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to this case, and whether RRPS waived its objections and privileges depends upon whether RRPS adequately asserted objections and privileges under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and not upon whether RRPS stated any privileges or objections when responding to Boulanger's IPRA requests.2
{8} The rules governing discovery during litigation state that "[a] party responding to discovery requests shall provide all non-privileged responsive information then known to the party, subject to the limitations in these rules or as ordered by the court." Rule 1-026(B)(1) NMRA. Rule 1-026(B)(7)(a) requires that when a party withholds information that is otherwise discoverable, "the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection." The rules applicable to interrogatories further provide that "[e]ach interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable." Rule 1-033(C)(1) NMRA. Rule 1-033(C)(4) (emphasis added).
{9} With respect to the particular assertion that RRPS did not waive its objections and privileges in responding to discovery, RRPS only develops an argument that it adequately stated its objections and claims of privilege with respect to interrogatory numbers two, four, and five, so we limit our analysis to these specific discovery requests.3 See Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA ( ); Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28, 329 P.3d 701 (). We set forth the relevant interrogatories and the answers thereto:
To continue reading
Request your trial