This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A law firm, acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal, requested public records under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) related to a news documentary. Dissatisfied with the responses, the principal and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to enforce the request. The plaintiffs did not directly request the records themselves, and the law firm did not disclose its principal when making the request (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, October 29, 2009: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing under the IPRA because they were not the persons who made the records request (paras 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Plaintiffs): Argued that the common law of agency should apply, allowing an undisclosed principal to enforce an IPRA request made by its agent. They contended that requiring disclosure of the principal's identity violates the IPRA's purpose and policies, including the prohibition against requiring a requester to state the reason for the request. They also argued that the district court erred in refusing to allow amendment of the complaint to add the law firm as a plaintiff (paras 5, 12-20, 33-37).
- Appellees (Defendants): Asserted that the IPRA explicitly limits enforcement actions to the person who made the written request and provided their name, address, and telephone number. They argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the district court correctly dismissed the case (paras 9-11, 23-29).
Legal Issues
- Does an undisclosed principal have standing to enforce the IPRA when its agent made the records request?
- Can individuals who did not request records under the IPRA bring an enforcement action?
- Did the district court err in refusing to allow amendment of the complaint to add the law firm as a plaintiff?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice (para 38).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Wechsler and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Standing of the Undisclosed Principal: The court held that the IPRA requires the person making the request to disclose their name, address, and telephone number. The statute does not contemplate enforcement actions by undisclosed principals, and the plaintiffs' arguments about agency principles and potential retaliation concerns were unpersuasive. The court emphasized that any changes to the IPRA should be made by the Legislature, not through judicial interpretation (paras 23-28).
Standing of Other Plaintiffs: The court found that the other plaintiffs, who did not make any records request, lacked standing under the IPRA. The statute explicitly limits enforcement actions to the person who made the request (paras 29-30).
Amendment of the Complaint: The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they were improperly denied the opportunity to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs never formally requested leave to amend, and the district court had no obligation to grant leave sua sponte. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to preserve this issue for appeal (paras 33-37).
Conclusion: The court affirmed the dismissal, noting that the plaintiffs could have pursued alternative avenues to obtain the requested records but chose instead to litigate the issue of standing (paras 31-32, 38).