News from the New Mexico Supreme Court:

SANTA FE – The New Mexico Supreme Court today reinstated a newspaper’s lawsuit against New Mexico’s largest electric utility. The writer had sued to prevent the news organization from publishing documents from a regulator.

In a unanimous opinion, the court ruled that a district court had wrongly dismissed counterclaims filed by the Santa Fe New Mexican against the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) because the newspaper claimed the lawsuit was meritless and violated freedom of the press. The newspaper sought damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The judges concluded that PNM was not entitled to immunity from civil liability because legal doctrine provides protection from retaliation for activities that seek to influence government decision-making, including litigation. Noerr-Pennington The doctrine takes its name from the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that gave rise to it. The doctrine is rooted in the First Amendment right to petition the government to correct a grievance or unjust action.

The dispute arose after the state’s Public Regulation Commission (PRC) provided documents to the newspaper in 2015 upon request. PNM claimed the documents contained confidential information and trade secrets related to a coal-fired power plant in northwestern New Mexico. The PRC, which regulates the utility industry, initially sought an injunction to prevent the newspaper from publishing the documents. PNM and two coal companies joined the lawsuit.

The PRC later reached a settlement with the newspaper, which also included a payment to it. PNM continued its legal action against The New Mexican. The newspaper filed a countersuit, claiming that those seeking to prevent publication of the documents had abused the process. The newspaper published the documents on its website.

PNM argued that The New Mexican’s lawsuit was retaliation for its legal action. The district court dismissed the newspaper’s countersuit in 2019, and The New Mexican appealed. The state’s appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision, and the newspaper asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to review the matter. One of the coal companies was dropped from the appeal after reaching a settlement with the newspaper. The other coal company filed for bankruptcy protection during the litigation.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ordered the case to be remanded to the District Court, and asked the District Court to reverse the dismissal of the newspaper’s counterclaim and enter a final judgment in PNM’s favor.

The judges concluded that “PNM’s conduct did not constitute protected conduct under Noerr-Pennington“ and as a result, the New Mexican was not required to hold its claims in court to a heightened legal standard that would otherwise apply to claims challenging protected activities.

“PNM’s litigation activities were aimed solely at resolving a private dispute with The New Mexican and were not intended to influence the government. PNM’s conduct therefore does not fall under the rubric of Noerr-Pennington doctrine,”’ the court wrote in an opinion written by Judge Julie J. Vargas.

The court further stated: “PNM’s action against The New Mexican is a purely private dispute between private parties, and PNM is seeking only a judicial resolution of that dispute.”

To read the decision in NMPRC v. The New Mexican, Inc., No. S-1-SC-39602, visit the New Mexico Compilation Commission website: https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/item/530461/index.do