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 New Mexico Attorney General's office, representing the State, in a civil lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and its affiliates. The State alleges that the defendants marketed and sold talcum powder products in New Mexico, knowing they contained carcinogens like asbestos. The lawsuit seeks equitable relief, civil penalties, and damages, including restitution, under various common-law and statutory causes of action (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court: Denied Petitioners' motion to compel the production of documents from non-party state agencies (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the State, through the Attorney General, must produce documents and information within the possession, custody, or control of the state agencies mentioned in the complaint (para 5).
• Respondent (State): Contended that the Attorney General does not have possession, custody, or control over documents held by other state agencies and that such discovery should be relegated to third-party discovery (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Does the New Mexico Attorney General have the authority to obtain and produce documents from state executive agencies not named as parties in litigation brought by the Attorney General?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted the petition for writ of superintending control, vacated the district court's discovery order, and remanded the matter with instructions to compel the production of relevant documents from the executive agencies referenced in the State’s amended complaint (para 8).

Reasons

Per Thomson, Chief Justice (Vigil, Bacon, Vargas, and Zamora JJ. concurring):

The Court held that the Attorney General's authority to access executive agency materials for discovery purposes is implied under New Mexico’s statutory framework, specifically NMSA 1978, § 8-5-2. The Court emphasized the Attorney General's broad discretion and control over litigation involving the state, which includes the ability to obtain necessary documents from state agencies. The Court rejected the State's argument that such authority would infringe on separation of powers, noting that the Attorney General's role as the chief legal officer includes managing the state's legal affairs. The decision ensures that discovery is reciprocal and fair, aligning with the principles of liberal pretrial discovery (paras 1, 9-11, 17-37).