FILED IN MY OFFICE

DISTRICT COURT CLERK

2/16/2018 9:23:09 AM
STEPHEN T. PACHECO
Marina Sisneros

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF SANTA FE
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WENDY IRBY,

Plaintiff,
Case assigned to Thomson, David K.
v. D-101-CV-2018-00515
Case No. ____________________

HECTOR BALDERAS, New Mexico Attorney

General, in His Official Capacity;
And PATRICIA SALAZAR, Record Custodian
For Hector Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ORDERING

PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS AND INFORMATION

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Wendy Irby, (hereafter referred to as Plaintiff), through her

counsel of record, A. Blair Dunn, Esq., and does hereby file this Complaint against Defendant

Attorney General Hector Balderas and his record custodian Patricia Salazar (hereafter referred to

as Defendants or AG), and does hereby state:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Otero County, New Mexico.

2. Defendant Attorney General Hector Balderas is an elected executive branch

official, and is situated in Santa Fe County, New Mexico.

3. Defendant Patricia Salazar is a record custodian for the NM Attorney General’s

Office.

4. This action is brought by Plaintiff, against the AG and his office, as a public body

in New Mexico to enforce the provisions of the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act,

NMSA 1978 §§ 14-2-1, el seq. (“IPRA”).

 5. The IPRA reflects the New Mexico Legislature's recognition “that a

representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate” and embodies the

Legislature's intention that “that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information

regarding the affairs of the government and the official acts of public officers and employees.”

Id. at § 14-2-5.

6. The IPRA provides that, with only certain, specified limitations, “Every person

has a right to inspect public records of the state.” Id. at § 14-2- 1A.

7. On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff requested the opportunity to inspect, examine, or

be provided the following documents:

All billing records including invoicing and payments for services provided
to the state of New Mexico, Attorney General’s Office by the Robles, Rael
and Anaya Law firm from 2016-2018.

And

All documents evidencing expenses for all personnel from the NM

Attorney Genera’s office for attendance to the United State Supreme Court
Case heard on January 8. 2018 regarding the water dispute on Rio
Grande.

8. By letter dated January 30, 2018, Defendant’s Record Custodian Patricia

Salazar responded that the AG’s office held 200 records maintained by the Office of the

Attorney general responsive to the request; however, some information would be

redacted. (Exhibit A).

9. The records provided are heavily redacted in violation to the IPRA

statutes, and the public records have not been properly provided and therefore the request

has been improperly denied in violation of NMSA § 14-2-12. (Exhibit B). Defendants

have violated the provisions of the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act in a

manner that constitutes withholding from inspection the public records Plaintiff
requested. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief that Defendants have

knowingly violated the IPRA in an attempt to conceal the use of hundreds of thousands

of taxpayer dollars paid to a political ally of the Attorney General for legal services.

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

10. This action is brought pursuant to this Court's original jurisdiction under Article

VI, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution and NMSA 1978 § 14-2-12.

11. Plaintiff is a resident of Otero County, New Mexico, therefore she is a

proper party to bring this action under NMSA 1978 § 14-2-11, because she is a “a person

whose written [IPRA] request has been denied.”

12. Defendant Attorney General Hector Balderas is a public state official that

qualifies as a "public body" as defined by NMSA 1978 §14-2-6; Defendant Patricia

Salazar is the records custodian for the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office.

13. The documents requested are public business records and are subject to

inspection under the IPRA. The redaction of the records was not done in accordance with

permission granted by New Mexico statute or jurisprudence.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO

INSPECTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the claims, facts, and allegations set forth in the

above paragraphs.

15. Defendant has violated the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act by

improperly withholding the public records properly requested by the Plaintiff as required by the

IPRA.

16. Pursuant to NMSA 1978 § 14-2-12 Plaintiff is entitled to damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

COUNT II

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the claims, facts, and allegations set forth in the

above paragraphs.

18. As demonstrated above in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants have violated the

provisions of the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act by withholding from inspection

the public records Plaintiff requested. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief that

Defendants have violated the IPRA.

19. The New Mexico IPRA provides that a custodian who improperly denies a record

request that the court shall award damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to any person

whose written request has been denied and is successful in a court action to enforce the provisions

of the Inspection of Public Records Act. NMSA 1978 § 14-2-12.

20. Because Defendants have violated the IPRA by improperly withholding public records,

Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction ordering the Defendant to produce all relevant documents in

the Defendant’s possession without the improper redactions.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court exercise its jurisdiction and

enter, pursuant to this Court's original jurisdiction, and the New Mexico Inspection of Public

Records Act:

A. A declaratory judgment adjudicating that the denial of the public records

requested by Plaintiff is in violation of the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act or, if

necessary, a writ of mandamus requiring the Defendants to produce the requested records;
 B. Judgment in favor of Plaintiff on Defendants’ violation(s) of the Inspection of

Public Records Act;

C. An injunction to enforce the provisions of the New Mexico Inspection of

Public Records Act;

D. An Order awarding Plaintiff any actual damages to be proven at trial incurred

as result of violations of the Inspection of Public Records Act;

E. An Order awarding Plaintiff her costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as

provided by law;

F. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted;

WESTERN AGRICULTURE, RESOURCE

AND BUSINESS ADVOCATES, LLP

/s/ A. Blair Dunn

A. Blair Dunn, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
400 Gold Ave SW, Suite 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505) 750-3060
abdunn@ablairdunn-esq.com
 STATE OF NEW MEXICO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

EXHIBIT A

HECTOR H. BALDERAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 30, 2018

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY

Wendy Irby
1410 Lavelle Road,
Alamogordo NM 88310
Email: window88352@hotmail.com

Re: Your Request for Public Records

Dear Ms. Irby:

On January 10, 2018, our office received your request under the New Mexico Inspection
of Public Records Act. In your correspondence you have requested to inspect the following
records:

All billing records including invoicing and payments for services provided to the state of
New Mexico, Attorney General’s Office by the Robles, Rael and Anaya Law firm from
2016-2018.

All documents evidencing expenses for all personnel from the NM Attorney General’s
office for attendance to the United State Supreme Court Case heard on January 8, 2018
regarding the water dispute on Rio Grande.

Enclosed you will find the 200 records maintained by the Office of the Attorney General
that are responsive to your request and subject to inspection. Although a number of these
records were not in an electronic format we are waiving the cost for this specific
production.

Please note that some information has been redacted pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 14-
2-1(A)(8), and Rules 11-503 and 1-026 NMRA, as they constitute confidential attorney
client communication and protected attorney work-product. See Santa Fe Pac. Gold Corp.

TELEPHONE: (505)490-4060 FAX: (505)490-4883 www.nmag.gov

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1508 - SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87504-1508
STREET ADDRESS: 408 GALISTEO STREET - SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87501
Wendy Irby
January 30, 2018
Page 2
v. United Nuclear Corp., 2007-NMCA-133, ¶¶ 38-39, 175 P.3d 309; Richards v. N.M.
Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, 2011 WL 2042553, at *1 (N.M. Ct. App.
Apr. 13, 2011) (non-precedential). Thank you for contacting the Office of Attorney
General Hector Balderas.

Sincerely,

Patricia M. Salazar
Open Government Division

Person responsible for redaction:

Tania Maestas
Deputy Attorney General

TELEPHONE: (505)490-4060 FAX: (505)490-4883 www.nmag.gov

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1508 - SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87504-1508
STREET ADDRESS: 408 GALISTEO STREET - SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87501
EXHIBIT B