This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Energy Policy Advocates, a nonprofit corporation, requested inspection of common interest agreements and related correspondence from the New Mexico Office of the Attorney General (OAG) under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA). The OAG withheld some documents and heavily redacted others, citing attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product immunity. Energy Policy Advocates challenged these actions, seeking full disclosure or in camera review of the documents (paras 1-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the OAG, upholding the withholding and redaction of documents under IPRA exceptions (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Energy Policy Advocates): Argued that the OAG's blanket assertion of privilege was insufficient and that the OAG failed to provide evidence to support its claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity. They sought full disclosure or in camera review of the documents (paras 9-10).
- Appellee (OAG): Contended that their good-faith assertion of privilege and the labeling of documents as "privileged or confidential" justified the withholding and redactions. They argued that this was sufficient to meet their burden under IPRA (paras 8, 20).
Legal Issues
- Whether the OAG's blanket assertion of attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity was sufficient to justify withholding and redacting documents under IPRA.
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment without requiring the OAG to provide evidence supporting its claims of privilege or conducting an in camera review (paras 19-21).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 35).
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Hanisee and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
The court found that a generalized assertion of privilege or immunity, even if made in good faith, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment under IPRA. The OAG failed to provide evidence or a detailed privilege log to support its claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity. The court emphasized that the burden is on the public agency to demonstrate the applicability of IPRA exceptions, and the OAG did not meet this burden. The court remanded the case to allow the OAG to provide adequate evidence or for the district court to conduct an in camera review (paras 21-36).