450 P.3d 398
N.M. Ct. App.2019Background
- Dunn, petitioner in a domestic-relations proceeding, sought all communications and records produced or received by the guardian ad litem (GAL), Kathy Brandt, related to the child custody case.
- Brandt moved for and obtained a protective order in the domestic case shielding her investigative materials from Dunn; the order prohibited her from responding to Dunn’s discovery.
- Dunn then served an IPRA request on Brandt (as an "arm of the court") and on the Second Judicial District Court (SJDC) custodian; the custodian denied the IPRA request, citing the protective order and other defenses.
- Dunn sued under IPRA for declaratory relief to compel production; the district court granted summary judgment for Brandt and SJDC and dismissed Dunn’s complaint.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the protective order barred disclosure and that the judicial deliberation privilege protected communications between Brandt and the presiding judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GAL records are subject to IPRA | GAL is an "arm of the court," so her records are public records under IPRA | Even if public, disclosure is barred by protective order and privileges | Court assumed arguendo records could be public but refused disclosure because of protective order and privilege |
| Whether a protective order can block an IPRA disclosure | Protective order cannot supersede statutory right to inspect public records | A valid court-issued protective order must be obeyed; disclosure in defiance would be contempt and wrongful | Protective order precludes disclosure; agency denial in compliance with order is not wrongful |
| Whether communications between GAL and judge are disclosable | Communications with the court are not privileged; plaintiff entitled to them | Communications are protected by the judicial deliberation privilege recognized in Pacheco | Judicial deliberation privilege covers judge–GAL communications because GAL functions as an extension of the court |
| Whether Kimbrell quasi-judicial immunity or procedural defects affect outcome | Kimbrell immunity doesn't bar IPRA enforcement; plaintiff also challenged naming and collateral-attack issues | Court argued immunity and other defenses might apply but were unnecessary to resolve | Court did not decide immunity or naming/procedural questions because protective order and privilege were dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacheco v. Hudson, 415 P.3d 505 (N.M. 2018) (recognizing a judicial deliberation privilege for internal judicial decisionmaking communications)
- Kimbrell v. Kimbrell, 331 P.3d 915 (N.M. 2014) (discussing guardian ad litem quasi-judicial role and immunity)
- Faber v. King, 348 P.3d 173 (N.M. 2015) (IPRA enforcement and interaction with discovery stays)
- Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 283 P.3d 853 (N.M. 2012) (IPRA’s strong presumption of public access)
- GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 445 U.S. 375 (1980) (court injunctions can prevent an agency or custodian from releasing records)