N.M. Stat. § 14-2-12 (2026)

   A. An action to enforce the Inspection of Public Records Act may be brought by:

       (1)     the attorney general or the district attorney in the county of jurisdiction; or

       (2)     a person whose written request has been denied.

   B. A district court may issue a writ of mandamus or order an injunction or other
appropriate remedy to enforce the provisions of the Inspection of Public Records Act.

   C. The exhaustion of administrative remedies shall not be required prior to bringing
any action to enforce the procedures of the Inspection of Public Records Act.

   D. 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.

History: Laws 1993, ch. 258, § 9.

                                        ANNOTATIONS

A district court is without constitutional jurisdiction to enforce an IPRA action
against another court of equal or superior jurisdiction. — In a superintending
control proceeding arising from an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) action filed
in the fifth judicial district court (district court), where the real party in interest, a party to
a civil case in the first judicial district court, sought to inspect email communications
related to a draft copy of a preliminary injunction order that a first judicial district court
judge (judge) had been preparing for issuance in the underlying civil case and the
contents of a personal election Facebook page maintained by the judge, not only did the
enforcement action fail to name the proper defendant, because the designated records
custodian is the only official who is assigned IPRA compliance duties, but because the
action was a coercive judgment ordering production under IPRA, the fifth judicial district
court had no constitutional jurisdiction to litigate any aspect of an IPRA enforcement
action against the first judicial district court, because Article VI, Section 13 of the New
Mexico constitution prohibits a district court from issuing writs of mandamus or
injunction directed to judges or courts of equal or superior jurisdiction. Pacheco v.
Hudson, 2018-NMSC-022.

An undisclosed principal cannot, as a plaintiff in an enforcement action, enforce a
denial of records requested by its agent. San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-
TV, 2010-NMCA-012, 147 N.M. 643, 227 P.3d 612, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 2011-
NMSC-011, 150 N.M. 64, 257 P.3d 884.

Undisclosed principal. — A principal, whether disclosed or not, can delegate the
function of requesting public records to an agent, such as the principal’s attorney, and
either the agent or the principal, even if previously unknown to the public records
custodian, can enforce the request if it is denied. San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v.
KNME-TV, 2011-NMSC-011, 150 N.M. 64, 257 P.3d 884, rev'g 2010-NMCA-012, 147
N.M. 643, 227 P.3d 612.

Where a law firm made a request to inspect public records on behalf of plaintiff; the
request included the law firm’s name, address, and telephone number; and the request
did not disclose the fact that the request was being made on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff
had standing to enforce the public records request that it made through the law firm.
San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-TV, 2011-NMSC-011, 150 N.M. 64, 257
P.3d 884, rev'g 2010-NMCA-012, 147 N.M. 643, 227 P.3d 612.

A person who has not requested public records, either personally or through an
agent, does not have standing to seek judicial enforcement of the Inspection of Public
Records Act. San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-TV, 2011-NMSC-011, 150
N.M. 64, 257 P.3d 884, aff'g 2010-NMCA-012, 147 N.M. 643, 227 P.3d 612.

Undisclosed principal has no standing. — Where a law firm made an inspection
request for records relating to a news documentary program and the request failed to
disclose that the law firm was making the request as attorney for or agent of plaintiffs,
plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the Inspection of Public Records Act. San Juan
Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-TV, 2010-NMCA-012, 147 N.M. 643, 227 P.3d 612,
aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 2011-NMSC-011, 150 N.M. 64, 257 P.3d 884.

Individuals who do not request access to documents cannot enforce a denial of a
records request by another individual. San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass'n v. KNME-TV,
2010-NMCA-012, 147 N.M. 643, 227 P.3d 612, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 2011-NMSC-
011, 150 N.M. 64, 257 P.3d 884.

Citizen must follow court-ordered arrangement to inspect records. — When a
citizen enforces this section through an action to compel production of documents, the
citizen must comply with the court-ordered arrangements for inspection. Newsome v.
Farer, 1985-NMSC-096, 103 N.M. 415, 708 P.2d 327.

Protective order precludes disclosure of records. — Where plaintiff was a petitioner
in a domestic relations matter in district court that involved his ten-year-old child, and
where, on plaintiff's motion, the district court appointed defendant as guardian ad litem
to the child, and where plaintiff served defendant with a discovery request seeking all
correspondence received or produced with either party or any other person in relation to
the domestic relations case, and where the district court issued a protective order
stating that defendant was not required to respond to plaintiff's request for production,
prompting plaintiff to request from defendant and the designated custodian of records in
the district court, pursuant to the Inspection of Public Records Act, 14-2-1 to -12 NMSA
1978, to produce all records of communications sent or received in any form in the
domestic relations case, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in
favor of defendant, because the protective order barred disclosure of the requested
records to plaintiff, and persons subject to an injunctive order issued by a court with
jurisdiction are expected to obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they
have proper grounds to object to the order. Dunn v. Brandt, 2019-NMCA-061.

Successful action to enforce is prerequisite for damages. — It is only in the event
that a court action is brought to enforce the Inspection of Public Records Act that a
plaintiff may be awarded mandatory costs, fees, and damages, and then only if the
plaintiff is successful in that action. Derringer v. State, 2003-NMCA-073, 133 N.M. 721,
68 P.3d 961, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 727, 69 P.3d 237.

Successful litigation interpreted. — Where the secretary of state’s office did not fully
comply with an inspection of public records request, claiming that its late production of
records to plaintiff cannot constitute success under the Inspection of Public Records Act
(IPRA) because plaintiff already had possession of the records at the time the litigation
was filed, and as a result, the secretary of state’s office did not withhold or deny plaintiff
access to the records, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding
attorney’s fees because IPRA does not include prior possession as a legitimate ground
for withholding public documents, and the fact that plaintiff’s litigation secured the
production of the denied responsive public records, the litigation was "successful" as
that word is used in IPRA. ACLU of New Mexico v. Duran, 2016-NMCA-063.

Reasonable attorney’s fees. — Where the secretary of state’s office did not fully
comply with an inspection of public records request, claiming that its late production of
records to plaintiff cannot constitute success under the Inspection of Public Records Act
(IPRA) because plaintiff already had possession of the records at the time the litigation
was filed, and as a result, did not withhold or deny plaintiff access to the records, the
district court’s award of attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion because fees
incurred in obtaining documents from a state agency are prima facie reasonable, and
when withheld records are subsequently revealed and determined to be responsive,
those records may become the basis for an award of attorney’s fees in IPRA litigation.
ACLU of New Mexico v. Duran, 2016-NMCA-063.

No action for damages after compliance. — The Inspection of Public Records Act
does not provide for damages pursuant to an action brought after a public body has
complied with the act. Derringer v. State, 2003-NMCA-073, 133 N.M. 721, 68 P.3d 961,
cert. denied, 133 N.M. 727, 69 P.3d 237.

Indefinite delay as denial. — Under the Inspection of Public Records Act’s
enforcement provision, there is no distinction between a denial and an indefinite delay.
Board of Comm’rs v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 2003-NMCA-102, 134 N.M. 283, 76 P.3d
36.

The Inspection of Public Records Act provides for two separate remedies. —
Section 14-2-11 NMSA 1978 and this section create separate remedies depending on
the stage of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request. Section 14-2-11
NMSA 1978 requires a public entity to respond to a records request within fifteen days
unless the request has been determined to be excessively burdensome or broad. If the
request is denied, the custodian shall provide the requester with a written explanation of
the denial. It is when the custodian fails to respond to a request or deliver a written
explanation of the denial that the public entity is subject to damages pursuant to 14-2-11
NMSA 1978. The enforcement and damages provisions of this section apply in an
action for the post-denial enforcement of the IPRA request. Faber v. King, 2015-NMSC-
015, rev’g 2013-NMCA-080, 306 P.3d 519.

Where the attorney general’s office received a request for public records pursuant to the
Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) and denied the request the next day, damages
pursuant to 14-2-11 NMSA 1978 were not applicable because the attorney general’s
office timely answered the request with a denial by following the denial procedures set
out in 14-2-11 NMSA 1978. When the district court held that the attorney general’s
office wrongfully withheld the public records, the enforcement and damages provisions
of this section applied. Faber v. King, 2015-NMSC-015, rev’g 2013-NMCA-080, 306
P.3d 519.

Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to enforce IPRA requests. — Where
respondent, a private prison medical services provider that provided contracted
healthcare services for the New Mexico corrections department (NMCD), negotiated
and settled at least fifty-nine civil claims alleging instances of improper care and/or
sexual assault of inmates, and where petitioners submitted written requests pursuant to
the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) seeking all settlement documents involving
respondent in its role as medical services contractor for NMCD, and where the district
court issued a writ of mandamus ordering respondent to produce the settlement
agreements, mandamus was a proper remedy to require respondent to produce public
records pursuant to IPRA because petitioners had a clear legal right of enforcement and
respondent had a clear legal duty to provide public records. N.M. Found. for Open
Gov't v. Corizon Health, 2020-NMCA-014, cert. denied.

Award of attorney fees was supported by substantial evidence. — Where
respondent, a private prison medical services provider that provided contracted
healthcare services for the New Mexico corrections department (NMCD), negotiated
and settled at least fifty-nine civil claims alleging instances of improper care and/or
sexual assault of inmates, and where petitioners submitted written requests pursuant to
the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) seeking all settlement documents involving
respondent in its role as medical services contractor for NMCD, and where the district
court issued a writ of mandamus ordering respondent to produce the settlement
agreements and pay petitioners' reasonable attorney fees, the district court's attorney
fee award was supported by substantial evidence where the court considered the
attorneys' years of experience and record of fee awards as well as an expert witness's
testimony explaining market rates in the relevant jurisdiction. N.M. Found. for Open
Gov't v. Corizon Health, 2020-NMCA-014, cert. denied.

Separate remedies distinguished. — Section 14-2-11 NMSA 1978 is focused on
deterring nonresponsiveness and noncompliance by public bodies in the first instance,
while 14-2-12 NMSA 1978 is focused on making whole a person who, believing his or
her right of inspection has been impermissibly denied, brings a successful enforcement
action. Britton v. Office of the Att’y Gen., 2019-NMCA-002.

Incomplete or inadequate responses to IPRA requests. — Where plaintiff made a
request for documents from the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) pursuant to the
Inspection of Public Records Act, §§ 14-2-1 to -12 NMSA 1978, and where the AGO
incompletely and inadequately responded to the request, the district court erred in
concluding that plaintiff’s action is exclusively one that proceeds under 14-2-12 NMSA
1978 and limiting the damages plaintiff can recover to actual damages under
Subsection D of that provision, because a public body that permits only partial
inspection, that is inspection of some but not all nonexempt responsive records, has not
complied with its obligation to provide the greatest possible information regarding the
affairs of government. Britton v. Office of the Att’y Gen., 2019-NMCA-002.

The attorney general failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment
on the inspection of public records exception for attorney-client privilege, as
extended by the common interest doctrine. — Where plaintiff requested inspection
of common interest agreements entered into by the New Mexico office of the attorney
general (OAG) with other states' offices of the attorney general, as well as
correspondence and emails relating to the formation of these agreements, and where
the OAG responded to the requests by withholding some responsive documents
altogether, without disclosing that any documents were being withheld, producing some
documents with all but a "privileged or confidential" stamp redacted, and producing
other documents with multiple lengthy redactions, claiming that the redactions were
supported by the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) exception for law
enforcement records or because the redactions constituted confidential attorney-client
communications and protected attorney work-product, and where plaintiff challenged
both the withholding of some documents and the heavy redaction of the documents
provided, claiming that none of the cited IPRA exceptions supported the denial of
responsive information, and where the OAG filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing that its blanket assertion of attorney-client privilege and/or work-product,
together with its assertion of good faith, established a prima facie case justifying the
denial of inspection of unidentified, withheld documents, as well as the redactions it
made on the documents that were produced, the district court erred in granting the
OAG's motion for summary judgment, because the OAG failed to establish a prima facie
case for summary judgment on either the IPRA exception for attorney-client privilege, as
extended by the common interest doctrine, or the catchall exception for attorney work-
product. A generalized assertion of privilege or immunity, even if the public agency
asserts the privilege or immunity in good faith, is not sufficient to establish a prima facie
case of compliance with IPRA supporting summary judgment. Energy Pol'y Advoc. v.
Balderas, 2024-NMCA-081.

Remedy for inadequate response to IPRA request. — Where plaintiff made a
request for documents from the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) pursuant to the
Inspection of Public Records Act, §§ 14-2-1 to -12 NMSA 1978, and where the AGO
failed to permit inspection of approximately 350 records that were responsive to
plaintiff’s request and for which no claim of exemption was ever asserted or written
explanation of denial issued, the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff’s action is
exclusively one that proceeds under 14-2-12 NMSA 1978 and limiting the damages
plaintiff can recover to actual damages under Subsection D of that provision, because
the AGO’s failure to either produce for inspection or deliver or mail a written explanation
of denial regarding the 350 documents is the type of wrong that 14-2-11 NMSA 1978’s
statutory penalty seeks to remedy. Britton v. Office of the Att’y Gen., 2019-NMCA-002.

Pleading an action for enforcement of IPRA against a private entity. — To plead an
action for enforcement of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), 14-2-1 to 14-2-12
NMSA 1978, against a private entity, a plaintiff must simply allege that the records
sought are public records arising out of the private entity's performance of a public
function and that the private entity has failed to comply with IPRA via the manner
outlined in either 14-2-11(C) NMSA 1978 or 14-2-12(D) NMSA 1978. Franklin v. Keefe
Commissary Network, 2024-NMCA-070.

Records arising out of a private entity's performance of a public function and on
behalf of a public entity are subject to IPRA. — Where plaintiff, a state inmate,
requested records regarding commissary prices for state prisoners, pursuant to the New
Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), 14-2-1 to 14-2-12 NMSA 1978, from
defendant, a private corporation contracting with the New Mexico corrections
department (NMCD) to operate an inmate commissary program at New Mexico state
facilities, based on plaintiff's belief that prices were not set at fair market value, and
where, upon receiving no response from defendant, plaintiff filed a complaint to enforce
IPRA, and where defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss, arguing that defendant
was not subject to IPRA because it is a private entity, the district court erred in granting
defendant's motion to dismiss, because the records sought were public records arising
out of defendant's performance of a public function and on behalf of a public entity.
Plaintiff established under the facts of the complaint that defendant may be subject to
IPRA. Franklin v. Keefe Commissary Network, 2024-NMCA-070.

Findings as to damages. — If the district court awards damages under Section 14-2-
12(D) NMSA 1978 for enforcement of a denied request to inspect records, the district
court is required to enter findings specifying the nature and measure of the damages.
Faber v. King, 2013-NMCA-080, cert. granted, 2013-NMCERT-007.

Where plaintiff represented employees of defendant in an employment dispute in
federal court; the federal court ordered a stay of discovery; plaintiff filed a request for
inspection of employment records from defendant’s office; defendant denied the
request; the district court held that the discovery stay did not preempt rights granted by
the Inspection of Public Records Act and ruled that defendant had violated the act; the
district court awarded damages of $10 per day from the date of the wrongful denial to
the date the federal court lifted the stay and thereafter damages of $100 per day until
the records were provided; and although the district court did not specify the nature and
purpose of the damage award, the record indicated that the damages were punitive, the
award was unsupported by findings supporting compensatory damages, which are a
prerequisite to punitive damages. Faber v. King, 2013-NMCA-080, cert. granted, 2013-
NMCERT-007.

Attorney’s fees. — Where plaintiff’s made two requests for records of payments the
school district made to a former employee; the school district denied both requests; the
district court ordered the school district to produce the records; to support plaintiffs’
request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $22,899, plaintiffs proffered their attorneys’
itemized billing statements and resumes together with the affidavit of an attorney
familiar with the prevailing rates charged by attorneys who attested to the
reasonableness of the fees charged and the competency of plaintiffs’ attorneys; the
district court awarded plaintiffs an arbitrary fee of $5,000 on the grounds that plaintiffs’
attorneys charged "strikingly high hourly rates", plaintiff filed only four pleadings, and
there were no hearings; the court refused to review the billing statements, rejected the
affidavit, and relied on its own assessment of a reasonable hourly rate and a reasonable
amount of time to litigate the case; the court did not have a clear grasp of the time and
labor involved in litigating the case to a successful conclusion or consider the novelty of
the issues addressed in plaintiffs’ pleadings or the policy goals of the Inspection of
Public Records Act; and the court failed to utilize an objective basis for determining a
reasonable award of attorney fees, the court abused its discretion. Rio Grande Sun v.
Jemez Mountains Pub. Sch. Dist., 2012-NMCA-091, 287 P.3d 318, cert. denied, 2012-
NMCERT-008.

It is clear the Legislature intended to enforce disclosure by imposing a cost – including
attorney fees – for nondisclosure within the time frames set by the Inspection of Public
Records Act, regardless of whether the public entity characterizes the nondisclosure as
a "denial" or as an indefinite "delay". Board of Comm’rs v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 2003-
NMCA-102, 134 N.M. 283, 76 P.3d 36.

Remedy for denial of access to tax assessment records. — Taxpayers who
believed that assessor wrongfully denied them access to public records should have
pursued the remedies provided in this section. To the extent the board found that the
information sought was irrelevant to the assessment of taxpayers' property, there was
no error in the board's refusal to sanction assessor. Hannahs v. Anderson, 1998-NMCA-
152, 126 N.M. 1, 966 P.2d 168, cert. denied, 126 N.M. 532, 972 P.2d 351.

This section does not authorize punitive damages. — Although government liability
for punitive damages would deter the abuse of governmental power and promote
accountability among government officials, the countervailing policy of protecting public
revenues must prevail unless punitive damages are specifically authorized by statute.
This section does not specifically authorize punitive damages. Faber v. King, 2015-
NMSC-015, rev’g 2013-NMCA-080, 306 P.3d 519.

This section authorizes the recovery of compensatory damages. — The damages
provisions contained in the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) are designed to
promote compliance and accountability from New Mexico’s public servants. This section
ensures that IPRA requests are not wrongfully denied, and if the requester is not made
whole by the provision of the documents, the legislature authorized a successful litigant,
in an action to enforce a wrongfully denied IPRA request, to seek compensatory or
actual damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Faber v. King, 2015-NMSC-015, rev’g
2013-NMCA-080, 306 P.3d 519.

Where plaintiff was successful in his state court action against the attorney general’s
office to enforce the provisions of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), and the
state district court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the attorney general’s office to
comply with the request for public records, and further awarded per diem damages and
costs to plaintiff, but failed to clarify the nature of the damages, the supreme court held
that this section does not authorize punitive damages or per diem damages for the post-
denial enforcement of an IPRA request. In a court action to enforce the provisions of
IPRA, this section authorizes costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and compensatory or
actual damages only. Faber v. King, 2015-NMSC-015, rev’g 2013-NMCA-080, 306 P.3d
519.

Damages. — Damages for enforcement of a denied request to inspect records are
governed by 14-2-12(D) NMSA 1978, not 14-2-11(C) NMSA 1978. The statutory
maximum per-day penalty of 14-2-11(C) NMSA 1978 does not create any standard for
an amount of damages under 14-2-12(D) NMSA 1978. Faber v. King, 2013-NMCA-080,
cert. granted, 2013-NMCERT-007.

The language of 14-2-12(D) NMSA 1978 does not permit an award of costs to
public bodies. — Where defendants were partially successful in defending an action to
enforce the Inspection of Public Records Act and sought an award of costs pursuant to
Rule 1-054 NMRA, the district court did not err in denying defendants an award of costs,
because the language of 14-2-12(D) NMSA 1978 does not permit an award of costs to
public bodies, even if entirely successful. Albuquerque Journal v. Bd. of Educ. of APS,
2025-NMCA-020, cert. granted.