San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-TV
| Decision Date | 16 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. A-1-CA-35839 |
| Parties | SAN JUAN AGRICULTURAL WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNME-TV, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, JOHN D'ANTONIO, NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER, NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION, and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO, Defendants-Appellees. |
| 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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 BERNALILLO COUNTY, Nan G. Nash, District Judge
Victor R. Marshall & Associates, P.C., Victor R. Marshall, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
Long, Komer & Associates, P.A., Mark E. Komer, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellees.
Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, P.A., Gregory P. Williams, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus New Mexico Foundation for Open Government
JUDGES
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge. WE CONCUR: M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, MILES HANISEE, Judge
AUTHOR: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA
{1} This case raises three issues under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), NMSA 1978, § 14-2-1 to -12 (1947, as amended through 2018). First, whether a request for "all documents" related to a television broadcast program can or should be interpreted to include video recordings within its scope. The district court decided it did not and we affirm that ruling. Second, whether a request for statutory damages under Section 14-2-11(C) can be premised on clarifications as to the scope of the request provided by the requester in subsequent communications, a complaint filed in district court to enforce the request, or in litigation documents. The district court held that liability for statutory damages must be based on the original request. We likewise affirm that ruling. Third, whether damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees under Section 14-2-12(D) are available where inspection of public records is denied based on exemptions that later development of the law revealed never existed. The district court denied damages, costs, and attorney fees. We reverse the district court's ruling regarding costs and attorney fees, and remand for further proceedings regarding both.
{2} In June 2007 the San Juan Agricultural Water Users Association (Plaintiff), acting through its agent, the Marshall law firm, submitted an IPRA request (June 2007 request) to: (1) KNME-TV (KNME); (2) Regents of the University of New Mexico (UNM); (3) the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (ISC); (4) Office of the New Mexico State Engineer (OSE); and others not involved in this appeal1.
{3} Plaintiff's June 2007 request was captioned as an "[i]nspection of [p]ublic [r]ecords [r]equest," and specifically sought inspection of "[a]ll documents relating to the program The Water Haulers, which was broadcast by KNME-TV." It also sought to inspect "[a]ll documents relating to the website The Water Haulers, . . . includ[ing] all of the related pages or documents included in or linked with this website." Defendants made some, but not all, of the requested material available for inspection.
{4} In August 2007 Plaintiff filed an IPRA enforcement complaint seeking the production of public records, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Plaintiff asserted in its complaint that "[t]he defendants have not produced all of the public records covered by the June [2007] request" and sought "a court order compelling each of the defendants to make full production of all of the public records that were requested on June 12." Plaintiff also asserted that ISC and OSE failed to produce for inspection an eight-minute promotional video of The Water Haulers (eight-minute video).
{5} In October 2007 Defendants moved to dismiss the case, alleging in part that Plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the June 2007 request. While the motion was pending, the records custodian for OSE and ISC supplemented their IPRA response by providing Plaintiff with ten additional documents relating to The Water Haulers. In November 2007 the KNME and UNM records custodian sent a letter to Plaintiff indicating that an additional 1,094 pages of documents were ready for inspection. This letter also informed Plaintiff that inspection of some records was being denied based on a "[c]ountervailing public policy favoring protection of thought process documents." On December 19, 2007, KNME and UNM provided Plaintiff with a privilege log identifying the withheld documents and the claimed exemptions.
{6} In February 2008 the district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed. We affirmed the dismissal in San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-TV, 2010-NMCA-012, 147 N.M. 643, 227 P.3d 612. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the dismissal as to Plaintiff and remanded the case to district court for further proceedings regarding Plaintiff's IPRA enforcement complaint. San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-TV, 2011-NMSC-011, ¶ 45, 150 N.M. 64, 257 P.3d 884.
{7} In July 2012 the district court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The district court later granted Plaintiff's motion to reinstate the case and ordered the parties to conduct mediation. After an unsuccessful mediation, Defendants served interrogatories and requests for production on Plaintiff. Defendants later moved to dismiss for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute, to respond to discovery requests, and to identify any documents it believed were being withheld. The district court denied the motion and directed Plaintiff to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production no later than October 15, 2013.
{8} In October 2013 KNME and UNM jointly provided documents they had previously denied inspection of in 2007. KNME and UNM claimed they were doing so because the law had changed. In October 2013 Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendants seeking in part "all writings, reports, statements and tape recordings . . . by . . . any person having . . . knowledge or information pertaining to the . . . issue in this law suit."
{9} In January 2014 Plaintiff moved to compel the production of video tapes "from which the [The Water Haulers] program was produced" (master tapes). The district court granted the motion in part, and Plaintiff was allowed to inspect the master tapes.
{10} In July 2015 Defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants. The district court found that OSE and ISC's production of additional responsive documents to Plaintiff in October 2007 was untimely and that there were issues of fact whether Plaintiff was entitled to damages under Section 14-2-12. As to KNME and UNM, the district court found that Plaintiff demonstrated a disputed issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of delays in producing responsive documents from October 2007 through November 2007 and whether KNME and UNM complied with IPRA with regard to the documents they subsequently produced. The district court conducted a nonjury trial in November 2015, during which OSE and ISC provided Plaintiff with a copy of the eight-minute video.
{11} In December 2015 the district court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law. With regard to the eight-minute video, the district court found: (1) Plaintiff did not request the eight-minute video in the June 2007 request; and (2) Plaintiff failed to prove the eight-minute video was within the scope of the June 2007 request. Based on these findings, the district court ruled that neither ISC nor OSE violated IPRA by failing to produce the video recording in response to Plaintiff's June 2007 request.
{12} As to the master tapes, the district court found: (1) the master tapes were not part of the June 2007 request; and (2) Plaintiff's January 2014 motion to compel marked the first time Plaintiff asked for the master tapes. The district court therefore ruled that KNME and UNM's failure to produce the master tapes was not a violation of IPRA, because it was reasonable for them to interpret the June 2007 request in a manner that did not include the master tapes. The district court also found that Plaintiff presented no evidence that any Defendant failed to produce other records.
{13} The district court awarded Plaintiff statutory damages under Section 14-2-11(C) for the period from June 16, 2007 through June 27, 2007, an award which Plaintiff does not contest on appeal. The district court concluded KNME and UNM acted reasonably by denying inspection of some documents in 2007, and later producing those documents following our Supreme Court's clarification of law regarding the unavailability of the exceptions relied upon by KNME and UNM in refusing to allow Plaintiff to inspect the withheld documents. See Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 42, 283 P.3d 853 (). The district court ruled that KNME and UNM's delay in issuing denials based on their claimed exceptions did not violate Section 14-2-11(C) in a manner supporting an award of statutory damages after June 27, 2007. The district court further found: (1) Plaintiff had not established by competent evidence any actual damages arising from the delay in producing the documents; and (2) Plaintiff was made whole by the production of the documents in 2013. Finally, the district court concluded that any documents produced after November 2007 were either: (1) not identified with...
To continue reading
Request your trial