1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Apr il 28, 201 6 4 NOS . 33, 787, 34,042 & 34,077 (Consolidated) 5 NEW MEX ICO S TAT E INV ESTM ENT 6 COU NC IL, as Tr ustee , A dm inistrator, and 7 Cu stodian of th e LA ND GR AN T P ERM AN ENT 8 FU ND and t he S EVE RA NC E TA X P ERM AN ENT 9 FUND, 10 Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll ee, 11 an d 12 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO e x rel. FR AN K 13 FOY, SUZ ANNE FOY, and JO HN CASEY, 14 Pl ai nti ff

s- In te rv en or s- Appe llants , 15 v. 16 DANIEL WEI NSTEI N, VICKY L. SCHI FF, 17 WI LLI AM HOW ELL , and MARVIN ROSEN, 18 D ef

en da nts -Appe lle es . 19 an d 20 GARY BLAND, et a l., 21 Defen da nt s.1 (C onsolidated w ith)

2 NEW MEX ICO S TAT E INV ESTM ENT 3 COU NC IL, as Tr ustee , A dm inistrator, and 4 Cu stodian of th e LA ND GR AN T P ERM AN ENT 5 FU ND and t he S EVE RA NC E TA X P ERM AN ENT 6 FUND, 7 Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll ee, 8 an d 9 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO e x rel. FR AN K 10 FOY, SUZ ANNE FOY, and JO HN CASEY, 11 Pl ai nti ff

s- In te rv en or s- Appe llants , 12 v. 13 SA UL MEY ER and RENA ISSA NC E P RIV ATE 14 EQU ITY P AR TNE RS , L P, d/b/a A LDU S EQU ITY 15 PARTNERS, LP, 16 D ef

en da nts -Appe lle es , 17 an d 18 GARY BLAND, et a l., 19 Defen da nt s.1 (C onsolidated w ith)

2 NEW ME XICO S TATE I NVESTME NT 3 COU NC IL as Truste e, Ad m inistrator, and 4 Cu stodian of th e LA ND GR AN T P ERM AN ENT 5 FU ND and t he S EVE RA NC E TA X P ERM AN ENT 6 FUND, 7 Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll ee, 8 an d 9 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO e x rel. FR AN K 10 FOY, SUZ ANNE FOY, and JO HN CASEY, 11 Pl ai nt iff

s- In te rv en or s- App el la nt s, 12 v. 13 ELL IO T BROI DY, 14 Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, 15 an d 16 GARY BLAND, et a l., 17 Defen da nt s. 18 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 19 Sa ra h M . S in gle to n, D ist ri ctJu dg e 20 N ewMe xic o S ta te I nve stm en t C ounc il 21 Br uc e A

. Br ow n, S pe ci al A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en er al 22 San ta Fe, NM1 Day

Pit ne y LLP 2 K en ne th W

. Ri tt, S pe ci al A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en er al 3 Stam ford, CT 4 for Pla intiff-Appellee 5 Victor R . Marshall & A ssociates, P. C. 6 V ic tor R. Mars ha ll 7 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 8 fo r Appe llants 9 Sc he ue r Y ost

& Patte rs on 10 Me l E

. Y ost 11 San ta Fe, NM 12 Whi te & Cas e LLP 13 O w enC. P el l 14 Josh ua D. W eedm an 15 New York , NY 16 fo r D ef

en da nt- Appe lle e Ro se n 17 Butt Thornton & Baehr P C 18 Ro dne y

L

. S ch la ge l 19 E m ily A

. F ranke 20 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 21 fo r D ef

en da nt- Appe lle e H ow el l 22 Som m er, Udall, Sutin, H ardw ick & H y att, P A 23 Er ic M. Som

m er 24 San ta Fe, NM 25 for D efendants-Appellees W einstein and Schiff1 Daniel Yohalem

2 San ta Fe, NM 3 for A m ici Curiae Ne w Me xico Found ation for 4 O pe n G ove rn m en t and N ewMe xic o P re ss A sso ci at ion1 OPIN ION

2 BUS TAM AN TE, Judge. 3 { 1} Appe llants ’ m oti on for re he ar ing is den ie d. T he opi nio n fil ed in this ca se on 4 Mar ch 24 , 20 16 , is wit hd rawn an d t hi s Op in io n i s s ub st it ut edin it s p la ce. 5 { 2} In te rv en or s F rank F oy , Su zanne Fo y , an d John Ca se y ( Appe llants ) ap pe al the 6 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppr ov al of se ttl em en ts b etw ee n th e N ewMe xic o S ta te I nve stm en t 7 Council (NMSI C) and three s et s o f defendants. H aving cons olidated th e three 8 appeals, w e consider whether the district court’s approval of the settlem ents was 9 co nsi ste nt w iththe F ra ud A ga ins t T ax pa y er s A ct a nd w he ther N MS IC ’ s L iti ga tio n 10 Com m ittee com

plied with the Open Mee tings Ac t, a m on g ot he r ar gum ents. W e af

firm 11 th e d is tri ctco ur t’s ap pr ov al of t he set tl em en ts

. 12 BACKGRO UND 13 { 3} Mos t of

the f oll ow ing f

ac ts are de ri ve d fr om the dis tr ic t cour t’ s fin din gs o f fa ct

. 14 Appellants do no t specifically challenge any

of these fin d i ngs. “ An unchallenged 15 finding of th e trial court is bind ing on appeal.” Se ipe rt v

. J ohns on , 200 3- N MC A -1 19, 16 ¶ 26, 134 N

. M. 394 , 77 P.3 d 298; see Ru le 12- 213( A )( 4) N MR A ( “ T he a rg um en t 17 shall s et fo rth a specific attack on any finding, or such findin g shall be deem ed 18 co nc lu si ve .”).2

1 A. The P arties 2 { 4} Appellants are qui tam plaintiffs in two actions filed in 2008 and 20 09 un der 3 the N ewMe xic o F ra

ud A ga ins t Ta xpay er s Ac t (F A T A ), N MS A 1978 , §§ 4 4- 9- 1 to - 4 14 (20 07 , as a m en de d t hr ou gh 20 15 ). Sta te e x re l. F rank C. F oy v. V ande rbi lt Ca

pital 5 Advisors, LL C , N o. D -1 01- CV -2 008- 1895 ( V ande rbi lt); St at e ex r el

. F rank C. F oy 6 v. A ust in C

api tal M gm t. L td. , N o. D -1 01- CV -2 009- 1189 ( A ust in ). Foy

is the form er 7 ch ie f in ve st m en t o ffi cer a t New M ex ic o’s Educ at io na l Re ti rem en t Bo ard(ERB). 8 { 5} N MS IC is a sta te ag en cy tha t se rv es a s tr ust ee of , a nd i s r es pons ibl e fo r 9 investin g, am ong other funds, the L and Grant Perm anent Fund and th e Se verance T ax 10 Pe rm an en t F und, w hic h are e sta bli she d un de r the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n f or the 11 be ne fi t of

c iti ze ns o f N ewMe xic o. N

. M. Co nst

. a rt V II I, § 10, a rt

. X II , §§ 2 , 7; 12 N MS A 197 8, §§ 6 -8 -2 to -7 ( 1957 , a s am en de d thr ough201 5) ; N MS A 197 8, § 7- 27- 13 3.1 (19 83 ). 14 { 6} The def

endants in th e present suit ar e three groups of indiv iduals and entities 15 al le ge d to ha ve en ga ge d inm isc ondu ct r el at ed to N MS IC ’ s m an ag em en t of the f unds

. 16 E ac h of

the thr ee gr oups is na m ed a nd d isc uss ed

in m or e de ta il be lo w . F or e as e of 17 re fe re nc e w e re fe r to the de fe ndants c oll ec tiv el y a s D ef en da nts

.3

1 B. The Q ui Tam Ac tions 2 { 7} W e b e g i n w it h a di sc us si on of t he App el la nt s’ qu i t am act io ns un de r FATA 3 because they

form the backdrop against which we c onsid er the three cases now bef ore 4 us. Sec tion 4 4-9-5(A) of FA TAperm its the filing of a “ qui tam action,” which is “ an 5 ac tio n . . . that a llo w s apr iva te p ers on to sue f or ape na lty , part

of w hic h th e 6 governm ent will re ceive. ” St at e ex rel

. Foy v. Aus ti n Cap it al Mgmt ., Ltd

. (

Austin II ), 7 2015 -N MS C- 025, ¶ 3, 355 P. 3d 1 (a lte ratio ns, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n 8 om itte d)

. A qui tam

pla int if f is r equir ed

to se rv e the c om

pla int a nd a dis cl osur e of 9 supp ortin g e vid en ce und er se al to the a tto rn ey

ge ne ra l, w ho “ m ay

int er ve ne a nd 10 pr oc ee d w iththe a ct ionw ith in s ixty day s a ft er

r ec ei vin g th e co m

pla int a nd the 11 m aterial e vidence and inform ation.” Se ction 44 -9-5(C) . I f t h e atto rney general 12 de cl ine s to int er

ve ne in the ac tio n, the qui tam pla int if f m ay pr oc ee d w iththe a ct ion

. 13 Se ct ion44- 9- 5( D ). “N otw ith standi ng [ the se ] pr ovi sio ns . . . , the a tto rn ey ge ne ra l or 14 pol iti ca l su

bdi vis ionm ay

e le ct to pur sue the sta te ’ s or pol iti ca l su bdi vis ion ’ s c la im 15 through any alternate rem edy available” and “ [a] finding of fact or conclusio n of law 16 m ade in the other proceeding that has becom e final shall be conclusiv e on all parties 17 to an action und er [ FA TA ] .” Sec tion 4 4-9-6(H) . I f the attorney general initiates an 18 al te rn at e pr oc ee din g, “ the qui tam pla int if f sha ll ha ve the sa m e ri ght s insuc h a 19 proceeding a s the qui tam plaintiff would have had if the action h ad co n tinued15 In an an noun ce m en t of 2010 ru le s ad dr es sin g th e pr ac tic es , the S ec ur iti es a nd 1 16 Exchange Comm issio n (SE C) stated that “ pay -to-play ” prac tices involv e “ [e] lected 17 of fi ci al s w ho a llo w pol iti ca l c ontri but ion s to play a ro le in the m an ag em en t of [ publ ic 18 pe nsi on p lan] a sse ts and w ho u se the se a sse ts t o r ew ar d c o n tri but or s” a nd “ inv es tm en t 19 advis er s th at se ek to inf lue nc e gove rn m en t off

ic ia ls’ aw ar ds of advis or

y c ontra ct s by 20 m aking or sol iciting p olitical contribu tions to thos e officia ls.” See Re le as e No. IA21 3043 , P oli tic al Co nt rib ut ions by Ce rt ai n I nve stm en t A dvi se rs p. 6 ( Jul y 1, 201 0) 22 htt ps: //ww w . se c. gov/ru le s/f ina l/2 010/ ia -3 043. pdf

; see 17 CF R 275.206(4)-5 (2012). 4 1 pursuant to [FA TA ] .” Id

. A s to the qui tam ac tio n, the state or pol iti ca l su

bdi vis ion 2 m ay choose to settle the action “ notwithstand ing any objec tion b y

the qui tam 3 plaintiff if the court determ ines, af t er a h ea rin g provid ing th e qui tam plaintiff an 4 oppo rt uni ty to pr es en t e vid en ce , that the pr opos ed se ttl em en t is fa ir , a de qua te [, ] a nd 5 reas on ab le un de r al l o f th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Sect io n 4 4- 9- 6( C). 6 { 8} Inthe ir

qui tam ac tio ns, Appe llants al le ge d that V an de rb ilt

Ca pit al A dvi sor s, 7 L L C and Aust in C ap ita l Mana ge m en t, L td. , as w el l as oth er de fe ndants , m ad e fa lse 8 claim s to the ERB and to NMS IC abou t the risks associated with, and perform ance 9 of, c ertain financial instrum ents and hedg e funds. T hey also alleged t h at there w as 10 “ pa y -to -p la y ” at t he ERB an d NM SIC. 1 11 { 9} V

ande rbi lt a nd A u s t in we re heard by two diffe rent j udges. Judg e Pf effe r, 12 presiding over V

ande rbi lt , dis m iss ed

som e of the Appe llants ’ c la im s onthe gr ound 13 that ret ro ac tiv e ap pli ca tio n of F A T A to co nduc t oc curr ing be fo re it s e ff ec tiv e da te 14 would viol ate the ex post facto clauses in both th e U nited States and NewMexico5

1 Constitu tions . U .S . C onst. art. 1, § 10; N. M. C onst. art. II, § 19. Judge Pope entered 2 a sim ilar or de r in A ust in . T his Co urt de cl ine d to he ar a n in te rl oc uto ry

appe al in 3 V ande rbi lt , but

la te r al low ed

a n in te rl oc uto ry

appeal of

thi s is sue in A ust in a nd 4 affi rm ed

. Se e Sta te ex r el . Foy v. Au st in Ca pi ta l Mgmt., Ltd. (

A ust in I ), 20 13 -NMCA5 04 3, ¶¶1, 3 , 29 7 P .3d 35 7. 6 { 10} At the tim e th e d istrict court approved the settlem ents in the cases now bef ore 7 us, the Suprem e Court had granted cer tiorari but had not y et decided the question . I n 8 June 201 5 th e Su

pr em e Co urt r ev er se d, hol din g th at the tr eb le da m ag es a va ila ble 9 unde r FA T A “ ar e pr ed om inantl y co m pe nsa tor y [and] do not viol at e the ex post f ac to 10 cl au se [s ] a nd m ay

be a w arded fo r co nduc t oc curr ing pr ior to the e ff

ec tiv e da te of 11 FA TA .” Austin II

, 2015-NMS C-025, ¶ 4 4. It a lso held th at, as to the civil penalties 12 av ai labl e un der FA T A , “ [i ] t i s . . . c onc ei vable that the a m ount a w ar de d inc ivi l 13 pe na lti es c oul d be pun iti ve in ef fe ct, part ic ularl y

if the tr ia l j udge a w ar ds the 14 m ax im

um [ of ] $10, 000 pe r vio la tio n” an d tha t, co nse que ntl y , “ [i ] t i s no t pr ac tic al to 15 m ak e tha t de te rm ina tio n w ith out kno w ing the act ua l am ount a sse sse d w ithf

ull 16 briefing on appeal addressed to a specific dollar figure. ” Id

. ¶ 4 9

. H e n c e , t h e S up r e me 17 Court declined to decide “ whether the civil penalties awar de d u nder FA TAare 18 puni tiv e an d vi ola te e x post fa ct o pr inc ipl es unt il the re is a de fi nit ive a m ount 19 aw arded. ” Id

.6

1 C . N M SI C ’s P lan an d th e P re se ntS ui t 2 { 11} While th e Appe llants ’ qui tam a ct ion s w er e pr oc ee din g a s j ust de sc ri be d, 3 NMS IC d ev el oped its o wn plan to recover from those inv olved in pay -to-play 4 sc he m es , inc lud ing som e of the de fe ndants in V

ande rbi lt a nd A ust in

. N MS IC is 5 pur sui ng r ec ove ry

usi ng the or ie s of

li ab ili ty oth er than F A T A , f

ocus in g first o n 6 ind ivi dua ls i nvol ve d inthe sc he m es . U sin g in fo rm at ion gle an ed f ro m the se 7 indiv iduals, NMS IC plans to pursue the entities involved. NMS IC anticipates greater 8 reco ve rie s fr om

th e en ti ti es th an fro m

in di vi du al de fen da nt s. 9 { 12} Co ns i s t e n t w i t h t h i s p l a n , N M S I C t o o k s e v e r a l a c t i o n s . F i r s t , i t d e c l i n e dto 1 0 i n t e rv e n e i n Ap p e l l a n t s ’ q u i t a m s u i t s a n dmo v e dt o d i s mi s s t h e p a y- t o - p l a y c l a i ms 1 1 i n v o l v i n g N M S I C

—

b u to n l y t h o s e c l a i ms

— f

r o m V ande rbi lt a nd A ust in

. See § 44 -9

- 12 6( B) ( “ The state or

pol iti ca l su

bdi vis ionm ay

se ek to dis m iss the a ct ionf

or goo d 13 cause notwithstand ing the objec tions of the qui tam plaintiff if the qui tam

plaintiff 14 has been notified of the filing of the m otion and th e court has provided the qu i tam 1 5 pl a i n t i f

f w i t h a n o p p o rtu n i t y t o o p p o s e t h e m o t i o n a n d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n ce a t a 16 he ar ing

. ”)

. T he m oti ons to d ism is s did not a ddr es s Appe llants ’ c la im s r eg ar din g 17 nond isc los ur e of inv es tm en t r isk s in V ande rbi lt a nd A ust in , nor did

the y a ddr es s th e 1 8 c l a i ms o f

p a y- t o - p l a y a tth e E R B

. N M S I C ’s mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s t h e p a y- t o - p l a y c l a i ms7

1 f r o m V ande rbi lt we re granted. It a ppears that as of June 2015 the district court had 2 n o tye tr

u l e do n t h e mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s t h e s e c l a i ms f r o m A ust in

. 3 { 13} Se co n d , b ec au s e i twa n t ed t o p u rs u e r ec o v er y fo r p ay-t o -p l ay i n NM SI C’s 4 inv es tm en t pr oc es s th ro ugh non- FA T A c la im s, N MS IC ini tiate d th e pr es en t su it, 5 alleging breach of fiduciary duty , aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty , bre ach 6 o f c o n t r a c t , a n du n

j u s te n ri ch m en t . Al th o u g ht h e p r e s e n ts u i ti n v o l v e s d i f f e r e n tc l a i ms 7 than th ose in A ust in , f

if teen of the se ve nte enna m ed de fe ndants in thi s su it ar e al so 8 na m ed in A ust in

. The di st ric t co ur t g ran te d Ap pe ll an ts ’ m ot io n t o i nt erv en e. See Ru le 9 1- 02 4 NM RA. 10 { 14} T he part ie s a gr ee tha t the pr es en t su it is an “ al te rn at e re m edy ” unde r FA T A a nd 11 tha t, the re fo re , Appe llants a re e nti tle d to the sa m e ri ght s inthi s su it as the y e nj oy in 12 A ust in , inc lud ing the ri ght to a h eari ng o n th e fa ir ne ss, a de qua cy , a nd r ea sona ble ne ss 13 of set tl em en ts

. See § 4 4- 9- 6( C). 14 { 15} T hir d, N MS IC a dopt ed aRe co ve ry

L iti ga tio n S ettle m en t Polic y ( Se ttl em en t 15 Policy ). The Settlem ent Policy , which is dis cussed in m ore detail b elow, also create d 16 a L iti ga tio n Com m itte e w iththe pow er to “ ac tiv el y

part ic ipa te in se ttl em en t 17 ne got ia tio ns, a s ap pr opr ia te , w iththe auth or ity of [ N MS IC ] f

or se ttl em en t r es olu tio n 18 an d r el at ed

de ci sio ns. ” O ve r obj ec tio n by Appe llants , the dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed a8

1 dis co ve ry pl an m eant t o f ac ili ta te se ttl em en t di sc uss ion s. U nde r thi s pl an , onl y 2 di sc ov ery es se nt ia l fo r se tt le m en t d is cu ss io ns was p erm it te d. 3 { 16} Pursuant to the Settlem ent Policy and the district court’ s discov ery plan, D ay 4 P i t n e y L L P , af

i rm e n g a g e db y N M S I C , i n i t i a t e d s e t t l e me n t n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h s o me 5 of the defendants, all of whom are represented by experienced attorney s. I t also began 6 an inv es tig at ion of the poss ibl e re co ve ri es a ga ins t i ndi vid ua ls and e nti tie s. A s part

of 7 thi s in ve sti ga tio n, D ay

P itn ey re vie w ed (1 ) ove r 2. 5 m ill ionpa ge s of doc um en ts f

ro m 8 the S E C, ( 2) 130 , 000 pa ge s of doc um en ts f

ro m thi rd part ie s, ( 3) de skt op o r la pto p 9 data from

twe nty -two N MSIC em

ploy ees, (4) 70,000 paper do cum ents from NMS IC, 10 (5 ) co m

ple te im ag es of N MS IC fi le an d em ai l ser ve rs , (6 ) six ty -e igh t se rv er ba ck up 11 tapes, ( 7) com

plete copies of server f

olders used byNMS IC e m ploy ees to store 12 inv es tm en t- re la te d do cu m en ts thr oughD ece m be r 2010 , ( 8) upd at ed

e m ai l f ile s f or 1 3 N M S I C e mp l o ye e s t h r o u g h De c e mb e r 2 0 1 0 , ( 9 ) s e rv e r h o me d i r e c t o r i e s f o r t w e n t y14 two N MSIC em

ploy ees, (10) em ail files for e m ail ad d resses used by NMS IC 15 inv e s tm e n t gr oups , a nd ( 11) audi o r ec or din gs o f N MS IC a nd s ubc om m itt ee m ee tin gs. 16 It s do cu m en t r ev ie w w as f ac ili ta te d by e- dis co ve ry te ch nique s of pr ed ic tiv e co din g, 17 co nc ep t gr oupi ng, ne ar -d upl ic at ionde te ct ion , a nd e m ai l thr ea din g. D ay P itn ey a lso 18 conducted in terview s with twenty -three indiv iduals, includi ng ov er a dozen NMS IC9

1 em plo y ee s. D isc ove ry w as obt ai ne d f ro m N MS IC , the S E C, a nd thir d part ie s, a s w el l 2 as fro m

so m e o f th e d efen da nt s. 3 D . Th e P at h to t he P re se ntA pp ea ls 4 { 17} Ea ch of the t hree cases now o n appeal t ook sim ilar bu t sligh tly differ ent routes 5 thr oughthe dis tr ic t cour t. W e beg in w ith the dis tr ic t cour t’ s re vie w of the se ttl em en ts 6 with the W einstein De fe ndants b ecause ( 1) of the settlem ents now on appeal, they 7 w er e the f

ir st ap pr oved, a nd ( 2) the pr oc ed ur es a dopt ed

by the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or 8 co nsi de ri ng the se se ttl em en ts s et the sta ge for it s c onsi de ratio n of the sub se que nt 9 settlem ents. T he cases on appeal ar e also discussed in the order in which the district 10 co ur t co ns id ered th e se tt le m en t ag reem en ts

. 11 1. Th e We in st ei n D ef en da nt s 12 { 18} In Apr il 2013 N MS IC r ea ch ed se ttl em en t a gr ee m en ts w ithD an ie l W ei nst ei n, 13 Vicky L. Schiff, Marvin Rosen, and W illiam How ell (the W einstein Defe ndants). In 14 these a gr ee m en ts, the W ei nst ei n D ef en da nts a gr ee d to pr ovi de inf orm at iona nd 15 an sw er

que sti ons ab out

pay -t o- play pr ac tic es at N MS IC , m ak e the m se lve s a va ila ble 16 to d o so, ex ec ute af

fi da vit s tr uth fu lly se tti ng f

orth the ir kno w le dge of

suc h pr ac tic es , 17 ap pe ar

w ith out sub poe nato pr ovi de te sti m ony a t de posi tio ns o r at

oth er ci vil a ct ion s 18 N MS IC m ay

ini tiate , a nd a

ppe ar w ith out subp oe na at tr ia l. T he W ei nst ei n D ef

en da nts 19 agreed to paym ents to NMSIC ranging from $100 ,000 to $30 0,000. In r eturn, N MSIC10

1 ag re ed to re le ase th es e D ef

en da nts f ro m a ny c la im “ ar isi ng o ut o f or

r el at ing to the 2 inv es tm en ts b y N MS IC

. ” Im portantl y , the dis tr ic t co urt f ound that N MS IC ’ s r el ea se 3 “ does n ot

c ov e r c l a i m s r e l a t i ng t o [ t he ] E R B

. ” T he s e t t l e m e nt a gr e e m e nt s we re 4 ex ecu te d b y

a m em be r of NMSIC ’s Liti ga ti on Co m m it te e. 5 { 19} O n Ap r i l 1 8 , 2 0 1 3 , N M S I C m o v e d f o r t h e d i s tr i c t c o u rt ’ s ap p r o v a l o f the 6 se tt le m en ts an d di sm is sa l of th e Weins te in Defen da nt s. See § 44 -9 -6 (C ) (“ T he state 7

. . . m ay

se ttl e the a ct ion w ith the de fe ndant notw ith standi ng an y obj ec tio n by

the qui 8 tam plaintiff if the court determ ines, af ter a hearing providi ng the qu i tam plaintiff an 9 oppo rt uni ty to pr es en t ev ide nc e, tha t the pr opos ed se ttl em en t i s f

ai r, a de qua te [, ] a nd 10 re as ona

ble und er a ll of the c ir cu m stanc es . ”)

. Appe llants fil ed a n ob j ec tio n to the 11 settl em en ts, but

did not a rg ue that the se ttl em en ts w er e unf ai r, ina de qua te , or 12 unr ea sona

ble , a nd d id n ot r eque st an ev ide nti ar y he ar ing

. A t a

he ar ing on July

15, 13 2013 , Appe llants f

ir st ch al le nge d the fa ir

ne ss, a de qua cy , a nd r ea sona ble ne ss o f the 14 se ttl em en ts and r eque ste d an e vid en tiary he ar ing , cl ai m ing tha t the y ha d “ en oughof 15 the thi ngs tha t [ the y ] put tog ethe r inde pe nde ntl y tha t” a heari ng wa s appr opr ia te

. T he 16 dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d App el lants to subm it a m em or an dum w ith in tw o w ee ks s ta tin g 17 the ground s for their obj ections and identify ing supportin g evidence. It also ordered 18 N MS IC to pr ep ar e anor de r m em or ia liz ing it s or al or de rs . Bu t Ap pe llants did not f ile 19 a m em or an dum as dir ec te d by the dis tr ic t c ourt. I nst ea d, Appe llants f ile d ob j ec tio ns11

1 to the pr opos ed

or de r pr ep ared by

N MS IC a nd r eque ste d astay in the pr oc ee din gs 2 pe ndi ng the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Aus tin II

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e 3 m ot io n t o s ta y

th e p ro ceed in gs an d Ap pe ll an ts ’ ob jecti on s t o t he pro po se d o rd er. 4 { 20} InA ugus t 20 13 the dis tr ic t c ourt sc he dul ed a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing f

or 5 Nov em be r 25 an d 2 6, 2 01 3, o n Ap pe l l a n t s’ ob jecti on s t o t he set tl em en ts . On 6 Se pte m be r 1, 201 3, the dis trict court e nte re d an or de r de fi nin g th e pr oc ed ur es f or 7 briefing and other issu es related to Appellants’ objec tions to the settlem ents. W e re fer 8 t o t h i s o r d e r

a s t h e S e t t l e me n tP r o c e s s O r d e r . Ap p e l l a n t s w e r e r e qu i r e dt o f i l e “a 9 m em or an dum

that se ts f orth the ba sis f

or the ir pos iti on tha t the pr opos ed se ttl em en ts 10

. . . a re no t f

ai r, a de qua te [, ] a nd r ea sona ble und er a ll [o f] the c ir cu m stanc es a nd 11 identifies the evidence upo n which they will re ly at the hear ing.” T he order noted that 12 Appe llants m

ust ove rc om e a pre sum

pti on tha t the se ttl em en ts ar e fa ir , a de qua te , a nd 13 re as ona

ble

. I t a lso se t ou t f

ac tor s un de r w hic h th e fa ir ne ss and a de qua cy

of the 14 settlem ents would be assessed. Finally , the order m an d at ed that a sim ilar 15 m em or an dum

w oul d be r equir ed

f or a ll fu tur e m oti ons fo r dis m iss al ba se d on 16 se tt le m en t wi th ot he r de fen da nt s. 17 { 21} Whe n Appe llants f ai le d to f ile the re qui re d m em or an dum by the da te se t by the 18 dis tr ic t c ourt, N MS IC m ove d to dis m iss the W ei nst ei n D ef en da nts w ith out

ahe ar ing

. 19 T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d N MS IC ’ s m oti on an d ex te nde d the de ad lin e fo r Appe llants ’14 A lth oughAppe llants m ai nta in o n a ppe al that the y

ne ve r re ce ive d th is 2 1 5 i n fo rmat i o n , t h e d i s t ri ctco u rt fo u n dt h at “NM SI C s er v ed a r es p o n s e t o [A p p el l an t s ’] 16 or al dis co ve ry

r eque st tha t pr ovi de d c ur re nt .

. . ga in and l os s in fo rm at ionon a ll 17 [thirteen] of the in v es tm ents associated with the [W einstein] De fendants, together 1 8 wi t h a c h ar t s h o wi n g ca s h i n , cas h o u t , a n d , wh er e ap p l i ca b l e, re s i du al v al u es .” We 19 de fer t o t hi s fi nd in g b ecau se it is su pp or te d b y th e rec or d. See P he lps D odge Co rp. 20 v. N.M

. Em p’t Sec. De

p’t , 19 83 -NMSC -0 68 , ¶ 8, 10 0 N.M. 24 6, 6 69 P.2d 25 5 (“ If . . . 2 1 s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce [t o s up p o rt a f i n d i n g ] ap p ea rs i n t h e r ec o rd , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 22 fi ndi ngs w ill not

be dis tur be d. ”)

. In a m oti on fo r re he ar ing , Appe llants poi nt out that, 23 in later procee ding s relating to settlem ent with another defendant, the district court 24 fo und tha t N MS IC ha d f ai le d to pr ovi de doc um en ts el uc ida tin g the da ta as or de re d.

12 1 m em or an dum by app ro xim at el y tw o w ee ks. A lth oughAppe llants f ile d a 2 m em or an dum

by thi s late r de ad lin e, it

did not a ddr es s th e spe ci fi c poi nts li ste d by the 3 di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er. 4 { 22} On N ovem

ber 1, 2 0 1 3 , Appellants represented at a m otion hearing that they 5 had evidence to sup port their oppo sition to the settlem ents but ar g u ed t h at they 6 needed inform ation abou t gains and losses on particular investm ents that NMS IC had 7 withheld from them for y ears. Appellants argued that they needed to see th e figures 8 fo r “ ca sh o ut, c as h in

. ” Co unse l f or Appe llant s st ate d th at

the y “ w an t[ ed ] to as k 9 som ebody

from [N MSIC ] , . . . , what w as the g ai n o r l o s s on thi s particular 1 0 i n v e s t m e n t

. ” Ap p r o x i m a t e l y t w o w e e k s l a t e r , N M S I C s e rv e dar e s p o n s e t o the 11 Appe llants ’ or al dis co ve ry r eque st tha t pr ovi de d ga in and loss inf orm at ionon a ll 12 thi rt ee n of the inv es tm en ts as soc ia te d w ith the W ei nst ei n D ef en da nts , tog ethe r w ith 13 a ch ar t sh ow ing “ ca sh i n, c as h ou t, ” an d, w he re appl ic ab le , r es idu al va lue s. 216 H ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt al so fo und tha t N MS IC ’ s “ fa ilure to pr oduc e did not 17 prevent the consideration o f the re asonableness o f the settlem ent [w ith that 18 de fe ndant]

. ” A lth oughthe y poi nt t o N MS IC ’ s f

ai lur e to p ro duc e th es e doc um en ts, 19 Appe llants do n ot d em onstrate that the f ailu re pr ev en te d th e dis tr ic t c ourt f ro m 20 co nsi de ri ng the r ea sonabl en es s of the se ttl em en ts w iththe W ei nst ei n, Me y er , or 21 Broidy

De fendants either. 13 1 { 23} A t the N ovembe r 25- 26, 201 3, e vid en tiary he ar ing , N MS IC pr es en te d th e 2 testim ony

of s i x wi t n es s es b y af

fi d av i tan dd i re ct t es t i m o n y. Th es e w i t n es s es i n cl uded 3 a m em be r of the L iti ga tio n Com m itt ee a nd a

D ay P itn ey a tto rn ey , a s w el l a s th e fo ur 4 W einstein Defe ndants. Af ter the witnesses attested that their af fidavits were an 5 ac curate re pr es en ta tio n of the ir te sti m ony

a nd p ro vid ed

the f ound at ionf

or e xhi bit s, 6 Appe llants w er e af

fo rd ed a n op portun ity

to cr oss -e xa m ine the m . Appe llants did not 7 testify , nor did t hey

present evidence re lated to the investm ent loss in form ation they 8 ha d re qu es te d. 9 { 24} A ft er

the he ar ing , the dis tr ic t co urt e nte re d se ve nty -thr ee f ind ing s of

f ac t and 10 fo rty -n ine c onc lus ion s of law . In a subs eque nt ord er , it gr an te d N MS IC ’ s m oti on t o 11 dism iss the W einstein Defe ndants. The f indin gs of fact and conclus ions o f laware 12 di sc us se d m or e fu ll y

in th e co nt ex t o f App el la nt s’ arg um en ts on ap pe al

. 13 2. Th e M ey er D ef en da nt s 14 { 25} A f

ewm onths a ft er

r ea ch ing a gr ee m en t w iththe W ei nst ei n D efe ndants , 15 N MS IC r ea ch ed

ase ttl em en t a gr ee m en t w ithS au l Meyer and R en ai ssanc e Pr iva te14

1 E qui ty P ar tne rs , L P, d/b /a A ldu s E qui ty Partne rs , L P (the Me y er D ef en da nts ) in July 2 2013

. T he pr ovi sio ns o f thi s se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t su bst an tia lly

m ir ro re d th ose w ith 3 the W einstein Defe ndants. This settlem ent agreem ent also wa s sign ed by a m em ber 4 of th e Lit ig at io n C omm it te e. 5 { 26} N MS IC m ove d f or appr ova l of the se ttl em en t w iththe Me y er D ef en da nts on 6 January

10, 2014. The m otion included th e settlem ent agreem ent and sworn financial 7 sta te m en ts from

the Me y er

D ef en da nts

. Appe llants f

ile d ar es pons e to the m oti on 8 objec ting to the settlem ent and requesting an evid entiary hearing. T he district court 9 he ld a tw o- hour

he arin g on Ju ne 19, 201 4, on N MS IC ’ s m oti on t o di sm iss a nd 10 Appellants’ m otion for an evidentiary hearing, and ruled th at Appellants h ad failed 11 to file a m em orandum consist ent with t he Settlem ent Process O rder. No e vidence was 12 pr es en te d a t t hi s h eari ng . 13 { 27} Ro ughl y

am onth l at er, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on t o di sm iss the 14 Mey er De fendants noting that “ [Appellants] we re given the oppo rtunit y t o identify 15 the e vid en ce the y

w oul d pr es en t i n op posi tio n to the se ttl em en t[ s bu t] ind ic at ed a t the 16

. . . hearing that they

had no evidence to present in o ppos ition to th e settl em ent.” It 17 t he r e f or e c on c l ud e d t hat a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng w a s un ne c e ss a ry a nd denied 18 Appellants’ m otion . T he di strict court acknowledged Appellants’ argum ent that 19 furthe r dis co ve ry

w as ne ce ssary

to obt ai n e vid en ce to supp ort their pos iti on b ut15

1 co nc lud ed

that Appe llants w er e not en tit le d to fu ll dis co ve ry be ca use “ [t ] he ex te nt o f 2 dis co ve ry

appr opr ia te in co nne ct ionw ithase ttl em en t appr ova l heari ng i s li m ite d to 3 whether the settlem ent is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” It concluded, “ [the Mey er] 4 D ef en da nts ha ve a dm itt ed

l i a b i l i ty , ha ve a gr ee d to c oope rate w ith[ N MS IC ] , a nd h av e 5 de m onstrate d th at

the y ha ve li m ite d f

inanc ia l m e an s [ , ] ” an d f

ound that the se ttl em en ts 6 were fa ir, a de qu at e, an d re as on ab le . The M ey er Defe nd an ts were d is m is se d. 7 3. Th e Br oid y D ef en da nt s 8 { 28} Elliott Broidy

(Br o i d y) w as the founder and chairm an of Mar kston e Capital 9 Gr oup, LL C (Markstone) (collectively , the Broidy De fendants). NMS IC a lleged that 10 Br oidy

se cure d an in ve stm en t f

ro m N MS IC in Mark sto ne ’ s pr iva te e qui ty f und by 11 m ak ing und isc los ed an d ill eg al qui d pr o quo pa ym en ts t o anothe r de fe ndant, the re by 12 ai din g othe r de fe ndants in br ea ch ing the ir f idu ci ar y dut ie s to N MS IC

. I n June 201 4 13 N MS IC a nd M ar

kst one r ea ch ed

ase ttl em en t a gr ee m en t. I n e xc ha nge fo r a p ay m en t 14 of $1, 000, 000 by

Mark sto ne , N MS IC r el ea se d Mar kst one an d Br oidy fr om

“ an y a nd 15 all claim s . . . arising out of, [or] in connection with, o r re lating to any activities 16 by

. . . Mark sto ne [ an d B ro idy ]

. . . w ithr es pe ct to

. . . N MS IC

. . . , inc lud ing 17 NMSIC ’s inv es tm en ts i n th e Mark sto ne F und. ” T he a gr ee m en t w iththe Br oidy 18 D ef en da nts did

not r equir e Br oidy or Mark sto ne to co ope rate in N MS IC ’ s c ivi l 19 ac tio ns a ga ins t othe r de fe ndants

. T his a gr ee m en t w as sig ne d by G over no r Su sana17 A

ppell an ts arg ue be fo re t hi s C ou rt t ha t Day Pitn ey “ ha s d is qu al if

y ing c onf lic ts 3 18 of int er es t. ” W e de cl ine to addre ss this iss ue be ca use it w as ne ve r co nsi de re d inthe 19 fi rs t i nst an ce by

the dis tr ic t c ourt. Appe llants ’ m oti ons to supp le m en t the r ec or d on 20 ap pe al r el at ed

to thi s arg um en t are de nie d. 16 1 Mar ti ne z as Ch ai r of

NMSIC

. See § 6- 8- 2( B) ( sta tin g th at the c ha ir of N MS IC sha ll 2 be the Governor). 3 { 29} Sh ortly

the re af te r, N MS IC f

ile d a m ot io n to dis m iss the Br oidy D ef en da nts 4 asserting that Appellants had no standing to object to the dism issal because they had 5 not na m ed Br oidy or Mark sto ne in the ir qui ta m ac tio ns. N ev er theles s, Ap pe llants 6 fi le d a re spon se to the m oti on to dism iss statin g thei r obj ec tio ns to the se ttl em en t. T he 7 district cou rt d ecid ed that no hearing was necessar y because the ca ses on which 8 Appellants relied to establish standin g to challenge the Broidy De fendants’ dism issal 9 we re a ll disti ngui shable, and b ec au s e Appellants’ objec tions to the settlem ent had 10 be enpr ev iou sly rejecte d and Appe llants pr es en te d no ne w r ea sons to ch an ge the 11 di st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on . NMSIC’s m ot io n t o d is m is s B ro id y was g ran te d. 12 { 30} Appe llants nowappe al the distr ic t c ourt’ s a ppr ova l of

the se ttl em en ts and 13 dis m iss al of the W ei nst ei n De fe ndants , the Me y er D ef en da nts , a nd D ef

en da nt B ro idy 14 fro m NMSIC ’s su it

. 15 DISC US SION 16 A. Pr elim inary Matte rs 317

1 1. Fin ality 2 { 31} T o the ex te nt tha t Ap pe llants ar gue tha t the dis tr ic t cour t’ s orde rs dis m iss ing 3 th e Defen da nt s were no t fin al ap pe al ab le ord ers , we di sa gr ee. See Ru le 1- 054( B) (2 ) 4 N MR A

. Appe llants a rg ue that th e or de rs a re not f ina l be ca use the y “ do[ ] not 5 ad j udi ca te a ll iss ue s r el at ing to the se . . . [ D ] ef endants , be ca

use [ the y ] do[ ] not 6 ad j udi ca te the [tw en ty -f

ive ] to [thirty pe rc en t] share of the se ttl em en t [ tha t] goe s to 7 [Appe llants ] , or

the a m ount

of a ttorn ey fees [tha t w ill be ] pa id b y the se 8 [D ]ef en d an t s .” Ap p el l an t s ’ ar g u m en ti s b as ed on NMSA 1978 , S ection 44-9-7 (201 5), 9 w hic h se ts o ut h owaqui tam pla int if f m ay be co m pe nsa te d w he n th e sta te pr ev ai ls 10 in a FA TA action. Section 44-9-7(A) -(C) guides ho w m uch a qui tam

plaintiff m ay 11 re co ve r. Se ct ion 44- 9- 7( D ) pr ovi de s that “ [a ] ny a w ar d to aqui tam

pla int if f sha ll be 12 pa id o ut o f the pr oc ee ds o f the a ct ionor se ttl em en t, if

a ny . T he qui tam

pla int if f sha ll 13 al so r ec ei ve a n a m ount f or r ea sona ble e xpe nse s in curr ed

in the a ct ionplu s r ea sona ble 14 attorney

fee s that shall be paid b y the defendant.” 15 { 32} H er e, Appe llants ne ve r fi le d a m oti on fo r the statut or y a w ar d and a tto rn ey

f ee s, 16 an d th e dis tric t c ourt di d no t ho ld a he ar ing on the se iss ue s. T he or de rs dis m iss ing 1 7 D ef e n d a n t s d o n o t a d d r e s s t h e s t a tu t o ry a w a r d o r a t t o rn e y f e e s . W e d i s a g r ee w ith 18 Appellants that the pendency of these issues r en d ers the dism issal orders non-final 19 fo r two reas on s.18

1 { 33} Fi rs t, the langua ge of FA T A its el f co nte m pla te s re sol uti on of the m er its of the 2 ac tio n be fo re de te rm ina tio n of the qui ta m pla int if f’ s aw ar d an d at tor

ne y fe es . S ec tio n 3 44-9-7 provides for such awards when the state “ prevails in the action” and wh en 4 there ar e “pr o ceeds o f the ac tion o r settlem ent.” This language indicates that 5 ca lc ula tio n of

the qui tam

pla int if f’ s aw ar d is sub se que nt t o and s uppl em en tary to 6 ad jud ic at io n o f th e mer it s o f th e act io n o r res ol ut io n b y set tl em en t. See V

alley 7 Im prov em en t A ss’n v. H

art ford A cc ide nt &I

nde m . Co

. , 199 3- N MS C- 061, ¶ 11, 116 8 N. M. 426, 863 P.2d 104 7 (distin guish ing between attorney fee s that are an integral 9 pa rt of c om pe nsa tor y da m ag es a nd a tto rn ey fees tha t are “ an al ogou s to c ost s” a nd 10 thus “ supp lem entary

to relief on the m erits”). 11 { 34} Se co nd, our

S upr em e Co ur t ha s he ld tha t “ [w ] he re apos tj udgm en t r eque st, 12 suc h a s on e fo r at tor

ne y [] f ee s, r ai se s is sue s ‘ co llate ra l t o’ a nd ‘ separate f ro m ’ the 1 3 d ec i s i o n o n t h e m er i t s , s u ch a re qu es t wi l l n o t d es t ro y t h e fi n al i t y o f t h e d ec i s i o n [. ]” 14 Ke lly In n No

. 102 , I

nc . v . Ka pni son , 1992 -N MS C- 005, ¶

21, 113 N

. M. 231 , 824 P

. 2d 15 1033

. Here, by

approving the settlem ents and dis m issin g Def endants, the district 16 co urt’ s or de rs “ de cl ar e[ d] the r igh ts and l ia bilit ie s of the part ie s to the und er ly ing 17 co nt ro ve rs y ,” i.e., t he set tl em en t am ou nt s an d t erm s. Id

. A ny de te rm ina tio n a s to the 18 App el la nt s’ pro pe r sh are of th e se tt le m en t am ou nt an d a tt or ne y fees “ wil l n ot alt er[,] 19

. . . m oot

or re vis e” the dis tr ic t cour t’ s appr ova l of the ri ght s and lia bil iti es se t out i n19

1 th e se tt le m en t ag reem en ts

. Id

. He nce, the proceedings to determ ine Appellants’ share 2 of the settle m en ts are “ co llate ra l t o” a nd “ se pa rate f ro m ” the appr ova l of

the 3 se tt le m en ts

. Id

. 4 2. Jurisdictional Lim its 5 { 35} Appe llants al so ar gue br ie fl y tha t the dis tr ic t cour t a ct ed be y ond its j ur isd ic tio n 6 in a ppr ovi ng the se ttl em en ts ( 1) be ca use the se ttl em en ts r el ea se d D ef en da nts f ro m the 7 FA T A cl ai m s in A ust in , w hic h w as pr es ide d ove r by an oth er j udge , an d ( 2) be ca use 8 those claim s could no t be relea sed while the A ust in c as e w as stay ed pe ndi ng a

ppe al

. 9 For the m ost part, Appellants provid e no authorityfor these c ontenti ons or to su pport 10 the ir a rg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur isd ic tio n he re is lim ite d by pr oc ee din gs i n 11 an entirely separate case. Ge nerally , this Court will n ot consider propo sition s that are 12 un su pp or te d b y

cit at io n t o a ut ho ri t y. IT

T E duc

. Se rv s. , I nc . v . T ax ati on & R ev en ue 13 De p’t , 19 98 -NMCA- 07 8, ¶ 1 0, 1 25 N.M. 24 4, 9 59 P.2d 96 9. 14 { 36} Ina ny

c as e, w e ar e unpe rs ua de d tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e xc ee de d it s j ur isd ic tio n. 15 Ther e is no disp ute that the district court had jurisdiction o ver this case. The fact that 16 a de ci sio n inthi s ca se m ay ha ve an im pa ct on ano the r pe ndi ng p ro ce ed ing doe s no t 17 dim inish its jurisdiction here. Indeed, Section 44-9-6(H) states tha t “ [a] finding o f fa ct 18 or c onc lus ionof

law m ad e in th e oth er

pr oc ee din g th at

ha s be co m e fi na l sh al l be 19 co nc lus ive on al l pa rt ie s to an ac tio n un de r [F A T A ]

. ” T hus, thi s pr ovi sio n a ppe ar s to20

1 contem plate the dispo sal of claim s in a qui tam actio n b y

decisions rendered in an 2 al te rn at e rem ed y

pro ceed in g. See In reP

h a r m . I ndus

. A ve rage W

hol es ale P ric e Li tig

. , 3 892 F. Su pp. 2d 3 41, 343 -4 5 ( D

. Ma ss. 201 2) ( re co gni zi ng tha t a se ttl em en t 4 ag re em en t i n ase pa rate qui tam a ct ionm ay

e xti ngui sh a

qui tam pla int if

f’ s c la im s and 5 hol din g th at

suc h ase ttl em en t was an “ al te rn at e re m edy ” unde r Se ct ion373 0( c) (5 ) 6 of the False C laim s Act ( FCA ), 31 U. S. C. §§ 37 29–3 733 (201 2)). 7 3. V iol at ion of

S ta y 8 { 37} Appellan t s a l so a r gu e t hatt he s t a y w a s vi ol a t e d be c aus e t he d i str i c tc ourt 9 re le as ed

the F A T A c la im s befo re the S upr em e Co urt ha d ac ha nc e to r ule on the 10 co nst itu tio na l/ ret roac tiv ity iss ue in Austin II

a n dth a t , c o n s e qu e n t l y, t h e S up r e me 11 Cour t ’s authority

wa s “ usurp[ed] .” But the district court assum ed that FA TAwa s 12 co nst itu tio na l, a n a ssu m pti on tha t f

av or ed Appe llants ’ pos iti on b ec au se , ge ne ra lly 13 spe ak ing , the lon ge r the pe ri od o f al lege d m isc ondu ct , the w eake r the se ttl em en ts 14 ap pe ar . Co nve rs el y , if the S upr em e Co urt ha d de ci de d th at the re tr oa ct ivi ty

pr ovi sio n 15 of FA TAwa s uncons titutio nal, then the period e ncom passing the alleged m iscondu ct 16 w oul d have be ensho rt er , w hic h w oul d have w ei ghe d in favor of the a de qua cy of the 17 s et tlem ents and against Appellants ’ positi on. W e conclude that the district court 18 pr ope rl y

a sse sse d th e se ttl em en ts i n li ght of the pe ndi ng a

ppe al s in A ust in an d did no t 19 us ur p t he Supr em e Co ur t’s au th or it y .21

1 B. Ap pellants Do Not Have Stand ing to Ch allenge the Dism issal of D efen dant 2 Broidy 3 { 38} T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t Appe llants did not ha ve standi ng to c ha lle nge the 4 se ttl em ent w iththe Br oidy D ef en da nts be ca

use the y w er e not na m ed a s de fe ndants 5 in Appe llants ’ qui ta m

a ct ion s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ea sone d th at , be ca use Appe llants ’ 6 ri ght s inthe pr es en t a ct ionste m sol el y f ro m the ir r igh ts i n th ei r qui tam

a ct ion s, 7 Appe llants ’ fa ilure to nam e the Br oidy D ef en da nts the re m eans that the y ha d no r igh ts 8 as to th em

he re. 9 { 39} A lth oughAppe llants appe al ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n an d dis m iss al of the 10 Broidy

De fendants, they

did no t address the legal principles of s tanding in their brief 11 in c hie f nor

spe ci fi ca lly

a rg ue that the dis tri ct c ourt’ s r uli ng w as inc or

re ct

. N or did 12 the y a ddr e ss t hi s i ss ue i n t he i r r e pl y br i e f e ve n a f t e r N M S I C r a i se d i t in its answer 13 br ie f. “ In thi s ci rc um stanc e, suc h a fa ilure to re spon d c onst itu te s ac onc es sio n onthe 14 m atter. ” D el ta A uto m ati c Sy s., In c. v . B ing

ham , 1999-NMC A- 029, ¶ 31, 126 N. M. 15 717, 974 P.2d 117 4. “ This Court h as n o duty to search the record or resear ch the law 16 to ‘ defend’ in a civil case a party that fails t o defend itself on an issu e. ” Id

. T his iss ue 17 having been wa ived, w e turn to Appellants’ subs tantive argum ents a s to the district 18 co ur t’s ap pr ov al of t he set tl em en ts wit h t he W ei ns te in an d M ey er Defe nd an ts

.1 9 T h e 2 0 1 3 a me n d me n t s t o t h e O M A w e r e e f f e c t i v e J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 1 3 , a f

t e r s o me 4 20 of the se ttl em en ts w er e sign ed by the L iti ga tio n Com m itt ee . T he 201 3 a m en dm en ts 21 do no t al te r ou r an al y si s. 22 1 C. Ap pellants’ S ubstant i v e A rgum ents as to t he We instein and Meyer 2 De fend ants 3 { 40} In t he se t w o app e a l s, App e l l a nt s r a i se t he sam e f our a r gu m e nt s. F i rst, they 4 m ai nta in tha t the dis tr ic t c ou rt erre d in li m iti ng d isc ove ry be fo re appr ovi ng the 5 se ttl em en ts. S ec ond, the y a rg ue tha t the dis tr ic t co urt’ s ru lin gs v iol at e FA T A

. T hir d, 6 the y a rg ue that N MS IC vio la te d the O pe n Mee tin gs A ct ( O MA ), N MS A 197 8, §§ 1 0- 7 15-1 to -4 (197 4, as am ended throug h 201 3), the Inspection of Public Records Act 4 8 (I PR A ), N MS A197 8, §§ 1 4- 2- 1 to - 12 ( 1947 , as am ende d th ro ugh 2013 ), a nd the 9 statute governin g NMS IC, Section 6-8-2. Finally , Appellants con tend that the dis trict 10 court er re d i n ru ling th at they lacked standing to raise issues related to alleged 1 1 co n fl i ct s o f i n t er es to f t h e f o rme r a t t o r n ey g en er al , Ga ry Ki n g , a n dh i s s t af f. We 12 ad dr es s t he fir st two arg um en ts to ge th er, t he n t he th ird an d fo ur th in tu rn . 13 1 . T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t D i d N o t A b u s e i t s D i s c r e t i o n a s t o D i s c o v e ry n or 14 Violate F ATA 15 { 41} Appe llants a rg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it “ re fu se d to a llo w 16 dis co ve ry ” an d “ re fu se d to a llo w the [ Appe llants ] to ta ke a ny de posi tio ns . . . [o ] r to 17 propou nd any

interrogatories .

. . [o] r to serve any req u es t s fo r productio n.” I n 18 essence, they m aintain that they we re denied the opportun ity to present evidence that23

1 the settlem ents wer e unfair and un reasonable—an opportun ity to whi ch t h ey are 2 en tit le d by

statut e—bec au se they

w er e undu ly

li m ite d inthe ir

abil ity to pr opound 3 di sc ov ery. See § 44-9-6(C). “ Although the rules favor the allowance of liberal pretria l 4 di s c o v e ry , t h e t r i a l c o u rti s v e s t e dw i t h d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e rm i n i n g w h e t h e r t o l i m it 5 discovery .” D eT

ev is v

. A rago n , 198 6- N MC A -1 05, ¶ 10, 104 N

. M. 793 , 727 P

. 2d 5 58 6 (c itation om itt ed ). H en ce , “ [a ] tr ia l c ourt’ s r uli ng l im iti ng d isc ove ry

is subj ec t t o 7 reversa l onlyupon a showing of an abuse of discretion.” Id

. 8 { 42} W e b egin by addressing Appellants’ argum ent that, beca use of the differe nces 9 be tw e e n F A T A a n dt h e F C A , i ti s i n ap p r o p r i a t e t o r e l y o n f e d e r a l c a s e s c o n str

uin g 10 the F CAin co nstru in g FA T A

. T he y poi nt t o San Ju an A gri cu ltu ral W ate r U se rs 11 Ass’n v. KNM

E- TV , in w hic h th e Su

pr em e Co urt st at ed

that “ [t]he dif

fe re nc es in 12 subs tantive text and legis lative purpo se s [betwe en a fe deral statute and a N ewMexico 13 statute] m ake the application of federa l

. . . law inapprop riate when construing [that 1 4 Ne w M ex i co s t at u t e]. ” 2 0 1 1 -N M SC -0 1 1 , ¶3 8 , 1 5 0 N.M . 6 4 , 2 5 7 P. 3 d8 8 4 . We 15 therefore consider whether diff erence s betwee n the FCAand FA TAm ake fe deral 16 cas e la w in ap po si te

. 17 { 43} Our c ourts have recognized that “ FA TAclosely tracks the long standin g federa l 18 [F CA ] ” an d th at

“ ca se s co nstru ing FA T A ’ s fe de ra l an al ogue , the [F CA ] , [are ] he lpf ul 19 i n understandi ng the context and purpos e of FA TA .” Austin II , 201 5- N MS C- 025,24

1 ¶¶ 16, 25; see State ex rel. P eterson v. A ramark Corr. Servs. , L LC , 201 4- N MC A -0 36, 2 ¶ 4, 321 P. 3d 128 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t FA T A is sim ilar to the F CA ). Appe llants a rg ue 3 that this p rinciple is inappl icable because the diff erence s betwee n FAT A and the FCA 4 indicate that the NewMexico Le gislature intend ed to afford qui tam plaintiffs broader 5 protections th an those provi ded und er the F CA. They derive this idea from

the fac t 6 tha t, w he re as the F CApe rm its se ttl em en t “ af te r a he ar ing , ” FA T A pe rm its se ttl em en t 7 “ af te r a he ar ing providi ng the qu i tam plaintif f an op portu nity to present

evidence .” 8 Co m pare 31 U.S.C. § 3 73 0( c)(2 )(B) , wi th § 4 4- 9- 6( C) (e m ph as is ad de d)

. 9 { 44} Under the F CA, a qui tam plaintiff m ay request an evidentiary hearing, w hich 10 “ shou ld b e gr an te d only upo n asho w ing by

the [ qui tam

pla int if f] of ‘ subs tanti al a nd 11 pa rti cu la riz edne ed .’ ” Cl ai re M. Sylv ia , Th e F als e Claims Ac t: F

raud A gai nst the 12 G ov ernm en t § 11:127 (2 d ed. 201 5) ; see R ide nour v. Ka ise r- H ill Co

. , 397 F

. 3d 9 25, 13 935 (1 0thCi r. 200 5) ; Nasuti ex rel. Un ited Stat es v. Savage Farms, Inc. , N o. 12- 14 30 12 1- GAO, 20 14 W L 13 27 01 5, at *1 3 (D. Mas s. M ar. 2 7, 2 01 4) (or de r), aff’d , N o. 15 14- 1362 , 201 5 W L 959 8315 ( Mar. 12, 20 15 ). T hus, the opp ortun ity to pr es en t 16 ev ide nc e at

ahe ar ing is pe rm iss ibl e unde r the F CA up on a suf fi ci en t sh ow ing , but 17 re qui re d un de r FA T A

. F ed er al c as e law a ddr es sin g w he n an e vid en tiary he ar ing 18 shou ld be granted is therefore likely inappo site to S ection 44-9-6(C) of FA TA . O nce18 W e note that Appellants relied on F CA cases in other contexts in th e district 5 19 court and thus appear to r ecognize that FCA cases are useful to c onstrue F AT A when 20 th e sp eci fic pro vi si on s at is su e in th e two st atut es are s im il ar. 25 1 gr an te d, how ev er , w e se e no r ea son w hy fe de ra l ca se law ad dr es sin g the co nduc t of 2 th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng it se lf i s i napp li cab le to ev id en ti ary he ari ng s u nd er FATA. 5 3 { 45} In addition to federa l case lawaddressing th e FCA , the law governing review 4 of cl as s ac tio n se ttl em en ts i s a lso ins tr uc tiv e he re . I n United States ex rel. Schweizer 5 v. Oc é North Am erica Inc. , the co urt he ld tha t ca se law ad dr es sin g t he fai rnes s, 6 a d e qu a c y, a n dr e a s o n ab l e n e s s o f c l a s s a c t i o n s e t t l e me n t s i s a n a l o g o u s t o t h e s a me 7 an al y sis und er

the F CA

. 956 F. Su

pp. 2d 1 , 10- 11 ( D

. D

. C. 201 3) ; see Fed. R. Civ. P

. 8 23( e) (2 ) (s ta tin g tha t cl as s ac tio n se ttl em en ts m ay be ap pr ove d “ onl y af te r a he ar ing 9 and on find ing th at it is fair, reason able, and adequate”). This approach has been 10 ad op te d b y o t h e r f

ed eral co ur ts

. Se e, e . g. , United States ex rel. Nudelman v. Int’l 11 Re hab. Assocs., Inc. , N o. CI V A 00-183 7, 20 04 W L 1091032 , at *1 n.1 (E .D . P a. May 12 14, 200 4) ( or de r) ; United S tates ex rel. Resnick v. W eill Med. Coll. of Cornell Univ. , 13 No. 0 4 C IV 30 88 (WH P), 2 00 9 WL 63 71 37 , at * 2 (S .D.N.Y. Mar. 5 , 20 09 ). 14 { 46} Sim ilarly , in N ewMexico, c lass action settlem ents are evaluated by the district 15 co ur t for th ei r fai rn es s, adeq ua cy, a n d r eas on ab le ne ss . Se e R iv era- P lat te v . F irs t 16 Colony Life Ins. C

o . , 200 7- N MC A -1 58, ¶

43, 143 N

. M. 158 , 173 P

. 3d 7 65 ( sta tin g 17 tha t the se ttl em en t pr opon en ts be ar the bur de n of

de m onstratin g th at

the se ttl em en t26

1 is f ai r, a de qua te , a nd r ea sona ble ). G ive n th e sim ilarit ybe tw ee n th e standard s f or 2 ap pr ova l of

se ttl em en t of

f al se c la im s a ct ion s and c la ss a ct ion s, w e loo k to c la ss 3 ac tio n law f

or gui da nc e on F A T A se ttl em en t he ar ing s. 4 { 47} H av ing co nc lud ed tha t fe de ra l ca se law gove rn ing obj ec tio ns to se ttl em en ts 5 unde r the F CAa nd c as e law on c la ss a ct ionse ttl em en ts i s a ppl ic ab le , w e ne xt 6 ex am ine that l aw . I n Schweizer , the co urt cons ide re d whe the r a qui ta m pla int if f “ w ho 7 obj ec ts t o apropose d [ FC A ] se ttl em en t r ea ch ed be tw ee n th e gove rn m en t and the 8 de fe ndant [ is] en tit le d to fu ll- blo w n dis co ve ry on he r cl ai m s inor de r to p ro ve that the 9 se ttl em en t [ is] ina de qua te [. ] ” 95 6 F. S upp. 2d at 11

. T he c ourt c onc lud ed that the 10 he ar ing r equir ed

by statut e “ se rv es a . . . li m ite d pu rp ose of f or ci ng the gov er

nm en t 11 to pr ovi de som e re as oni ng b eh ind it s de ci sio n to se ttl e the c as e an d gi vin g th e 12 pla int if

f- re la tor s an op portun ity

to dir ec t the co urt’ s att en tio n to fa ct s or a lle ga tio ns 13 tha t wo uld sugg es t the se ttl em en t w as not ‘ fa ir , a de qua te [, ] a nd r ea sona ble und er a ll 14 the circum stances[. ] ’ ” Id

. Based on this lim ited p u rp ose, it further concluded that 15 “ allowing full-blown discov ery as of rig h t wo u l d risk transform ing th e [F CA 16 se ttl em en t] he ar ing int o atr ia l onthe m er its of [the qui ta m ] pla int if f’ s c la im s and the 17 governm ent’ s estim ations of the liti gation risk s. I t would put the cart bef ore the horse, 18 in e ssence m aking trial a precondition of settlem ent.” Id

. Although it held that th ere 19 w as no r igh t t o f

ull dis co ve ry , the c ourt no te d th at li m ite d d is co very

w oul d be27

1 ap pr opr ia te w he n “ the gov er nm en t ha s no t a de qua te ly ex pla ine d it s r ea soni ng b eh ind 2 the settlem ent.” Id.; see United States ex rel. McC oy v. Cal. Med. Re view, Inc. , 133 3 F. R.D . 143, 149 (N .D . C al. 1990 ) (stating that althoug h a qui tam plaintiff is entitled 4 “ to d isc ove ry

on the f ai rn es s of the pr opos ed

se ttl em en t, th e di sc ov ery m ust be 5 lim ite d to e ff

ec tua te the goa l of

a llo w ing pla int if

fs m eanin gf

ul p ar tic ipati on i n th e 6 fa ir ne ss h eari ng with out

und uly bur de nin g th e U nit ed

S ta te s or the de fe ndants or 7 causing un ne ce s s ar y d elay ”); 5B F ed. P roc. , L . E d. § 10:73 (200 4) (“ The qui tam 8 pla int if fs m ay be al low ed lim ite d disc ove ry to ena ble the m to play a n a ct ive r ole in 9 he ar ing s onapr opos ed se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t. ”) ; cf

. 32B A m . Jur

. 2d F

ed eral C ourt s 10 § 18 70 ( 2016 ) (s ta tin g tha t “ fo rm al dis co ve ry is not apr er equis ite to the appr ova l of 11 a [c la ss a ct ion ] se ttl em en t as lon g as the pla int if fs ’ ne got ia tor s ha d a cc es s to suf fi ci en t 12 inform ation regarding the facts of th e case, and if th e term s of the settlem ent are fair, 13 the c ourt m ay

r eas ona bly c onc lud e tha t c ouns el pe rf orm ed a de qua te ly

in obt ai nin g 14 a wor ki ng kn owl ed ge of t he cas e”).14 Appe llants arg ue th at R iv era- P lat te c an not be r el ie d up on b ec au se the 6 15 Su pr em e Co urt de em ed

it of no “ fo rc e or

e ff ec t” aft er a ll the part ie s “ [s ough t] to 16 im ple m en t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s [ f] ina l [ o] rd er in the int er es t of

a ch ie vin g ac la ss- w ide 17 settlem ent.” P lat te v . F irs t C olo nyL ife I

ns. Co

. , 2008-NMS C-058, ¶¶ 6, 8, 145 N.M. 18 77, 194 P

. 3d 1 08. A lth oughthi s C ourt’ s or de r w as de em ed of no f or ce or ef fe ct a s to 19 the part ie s, the le ga l pr opos iti ons se t ou t i n th e O pin ionr em ai n pr ec ed en tia l and h av e 20 be en cit edin ot he r cas es , i nc lu di ng by o ur Supr em e Co ur t. See , e. g. , D av is v

. D ev on 21 E ne rgyCo rp. , 2009 -N MS C- 048, ¶ 38, 147 N

. M. 157 , 218 P

. 3d 7 5; A the rto n v . G opi n , 22 2012 -N MC A -0 23, ¶ 7, 272 P

. 3d 7 00; State v. Pacheco , 200 8- N MC A -1 31, ¶ 34, 145 23 N.M. 40 , 19 3 P .3d 58 7. 28 1 { 48} The Schweizer

hol din g is para lle le d in R iv era- P lat te , in which this Court 6 2 co ns id ered whet he r “ th e se tt le m en t p ro c e s s w a s u nf ai r be cau se [th e o bjec to rs ’]

. . . 3 re que sts f

or dis co ve ry

w er e de nied

. ” 2007 -N MC A -1 58, ¶ 52. W e re

j ec te d th e 4 obj ec tor s’ a rg um en t tha t “ inf orm al ” dis co ve ry

w as ina de qua te to pe rm it the c ourt t o 5 ev al ua te th e se tt le m en t, id. ¶ 49 , a nd th atth ey ha d “ an ab so lu te rig ht to di sc ov ery. ” 6 Id

. ¶ 94 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). I nste ad, w e stated that 7 inf orm al dis co ve ry

is ap pr op ria te so lon g a s it is suf fi ci en t “ to f

ai rl y e va lua te the 8 m erits of [the d] efendants’ positi ons du rin g s ettlem ent negotiatio ns.” Id

. ¶ 4 9 . We 9 also noted that “ [o] ne of the m aj or reasons courts encourage settlem ent is to reduce 10 the c ost

of li tig at ion ” an d th at

be ca use se ttl em en t i s “ an ex tr a j udi ci al pr oc es s, 11 inform ality

in the d iscovery

of inform ation is desi red. ” Id

. ¶ 51 ( int er na l qu ota tio n 1 2 m a rk s a n dc i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. A l t h o u g h in Rive ra -P lat te we rever sed the district 13 co urt’ s de nia l of

dis co ve ry , w e hel d that “ the dis tr ic t cour t wo uld not ha ve ab use d it s29

1 dis cr et ionin de ny ing dis co ve ry if it ha d su ff ic ie nt i nf orm at ionbe fo re it

to de te rm ine 2 whether t o ap p ro v e the settlem ent.” Id

. ¶ 95; ac co rd H

er she y v. E xx onM obi l O il 3 Co rp. , N o. 07- 1300 -J T M, 201 2 W L 475 8040 , a t *2 (D. Kan. O ct

. 5, 201 2) ( sta tin g 4 tha t “ [t ] he f

undam en ta l qu es tio n is w he the r the dis tr ict [co ur t] ha s su ff ic ie nt f ac ts 5 be fo re [ it] to int el lig en tly ap pr ove or dis ap pr ove the se ttl em en t” ( int er na l qu ota tio n 6 m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 7 { 49} Consist ent with these principles, the district c ourt her e properly concluded that 8 “ [Appe llants ] a re not

e nti tle d to c ondu ct

or co m pl et e fu ll- blo w n di sc ove ry pr ior to 9 pr opos ed se ttle m en t a ppr ova l. ” H en ce , w e re

j ec t Appe llants ’ c ont en tio n th at the 10 di st ric t co ur t v io la te d F ATA by li m it in g d is co ve ry

be fo re s et tl em en t. 11 { 50} W e turn next to Appellants’ argum en ts that the wa ythe district court lim ited 12 dis co ve ry

und uly hin de re d th ei r ab ili ty

to ch al le nge the se ttlem en ts c ontrary to 13 FA T A

. Appe llants a rg ue that the y w er e im pr ope rl y de nie d any

dis co ve ry . T he y

a lso 14 ar gue that the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl y r ule d th at da m ag es c al cu la ti on s were no t 15 im portant f or e va lua tio n of

the sett le m en ts and the re fo re de nie d th ei r re que st f or 16 di sc ov ery as to da m ag es . Neit he r of th es e co nt en ti on s i s s up po rte d b y th e rec or d. 17 { 51} Contrary

to their statem ent that they we re denied all discov er y, w e note that 18 Appe llants w er e pr ovi de d w itha ll of the dis co ve ry

obtai ne d by

N MS IC f

ro m 19 De fendants. A lso, Appellants conceded in the district court that t h eyhad rece ived30

1 som e dis co ve ry

f ro m N MS IC , that the y

w er e “ sa tis if

ed ” w ith N MS IC ’ s r es pons e, a nd 2 th atth ere was “ no di sp ut e wit h th e [q ]ui [t ]am [p]la in ti ffs an d [NM SIC] wit h [h ow] 3 they have responded to d iscovery ,” and the district court e ntered an order stating that 4 Appe llants w er e en tit le d to r ec ei ve a ny f urthe r m at er ia ls that were pr oduc ed to 5 N MS IC c ouns el by

D ef en da nts

. I n a ddi tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt or de red that “ba sic 6 doc um en ts r el at ing to the tr an sa ct ion s a t i ssu e in this c as e” m us t be produc ed

by 7 De fendants to bo th NMSI C and Appellants. T he district court also ordered that 8 pe rs ona l f

inanc ia l i nf

orm at ionf

or D ef en da nts shoul d be pr oduc ed to Appe llants

. 9 Fi na lly , the dis tr ic t co urt or de re d th at “ ea ch[ D ] ef

en da nt s ha ll pr ovi de to [Appe llants ] 1 0

. . . a c o p y o f a n y i n s u r a n c e a g r e e m e n t u n d e r w h i c h a n i n s u r a n c e b u s i n e s s m ay be 11 lia ble to sa tis fy

a ll or part of apos sib le j udgm en t i n th is s uit or t o inde m

nif y or 12 rei m bu rs e an y de fen da nt forpa ym en ts m ad e to sat is fy an y jud gm en t i n t hi s s ui t.” 13 { 52} G ive n the pr oduc tio n of the ab ove de sc ri be d dis co ve ry , we un ders tand 14 Appellants’ argum ent to be that their other specif i c requ ests for discovery we re 15 im properly denied. Ap p el lants requested “ the nam e and .

. . address .

. . of eac h 16 ind ivi dua l l ike ly

to ha ve dis co ve ra

ble inf orm at ion ” ab out

the case ; c opi es of

“ al l 17 doc um en ts, el ec tr oni ca lly sto re d info rm at ion , an d tang ibl e thi ngs tha t the dis cl osi ng 18 party ” m ight “ use to sup port its claim s or defenses”; “ a com putatio n of eac h category 19 of da m ag es c la im ed by the dis cl osi ng party ”; an d a “ co py of an y ins ur an ce a gr ee m en t31

1 unde r w hic h an in su ran ce bu sines s m ay be li ab le to sa tis fy

a ll or part of apos sib le 2 j udgm en t. ” T he y

a rg ue d be lowa nd o n a

ppe al that the se fo ur

r eque sts “ tr ac k[ ] the li st 3 in Rule 1-026(B)(3) [N MRA ] ” and in its federal c oun t er p ar t , Fed. R . C iv. P. 4 26( a) (1 )( A ), a nd tha t this inform at io n is “pa rt of the m ini m al due dil ige nc e an d 5 co m pe te nc e tha t i s r equir ed

in ev ery ca se . ” In

a ddi tio n, the y

a ske d D ef

en da nts to 6 “ de sc ri be a ll co m

m uni ca tio ns b etw ee n y ou and any of the oth er

part ie s to thi s 7 law sui t, ” “ [p ] ro vid e a co py of a ll doc um en ts, e le ctro nic al ly sto re d in fo rm at ion , a nd 8 tangibl e things th at rec ord or ref lect any [such] com

m unication s,” and “ [p] rovide a 9 co py of a ll doc um en ts, e le ctro nic al ly sto re d in fo rm at ion , a nd t an gib le thi ngs re la tin g 10 to th e tr an sa ct io ns gi vi ng ris e to th is laws ui t.” 11 { 53} D ef

en da nts obj ec te d to the se r eque sts a nd s om e soug ht p ro te ct ive or de rs . T he 12 district court issued an order preventing Appellants from prom ulgatin g the requested 13 dis co ve ry

on D ef en da nts , w iththe e xc ep tio n of the m at er ia ls d isc uss ed in pa ra gr ap h 14 50. I n it s or al rem ark s, the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed that “ [i t di d] not

be lie ve that du e 15 dil ige nc e re qui re s answ er s to the m an da tor y . . . dis cl osur es ” in R

ule 1- 026( B) (3 ) an d 16 tha t the a nsw ers to those r eque sts w er e not ne ce ssary

f or it to ev al ua te the 17 se tt le m en ts

.32

1 { 54} W e co nc lu de th at th e dis tr ic t c our t di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n inli m iti ng 2 Appellants’ discovery

as it did. In th e Settlem ent Process O rder, the district court 3 not if ie d Appe llants that the y

m ust de m onstrate that 4 (1) there is a low r isk of . .

. failing to establis h liabilityagainst [the] 5 [s ]ettl in g [d ]efend an ts un de r FATA, 6 (2 ) the re is a lowr isk of

. . . f ai lin g to e sta

bli sh d am ag es a ga ins t [ the 7 se tt li ng de fen da nt s] un de r FATA, 8 (3 ) the se ttl em en t am ount s are not w ith in the r an ge of

r ea sona ble ne ss i n 9 lig ht o f the be st p oss ibl e re co ve ry [, ] a nd 10 (4 ) the se ttl em en t am ount s are not w ith in the r an ge of r ea sona ble ne ss i n 11 li gh t o f al l . . . th e at te nd an t ri sk s o f li ti ga ti on . 12 { 55} Appe llants did

not de m onstrate to the dis tr ic t c ourt, a nd d o not de m onstrate on 13 appeal, howtheir broad discovery re q u es ts wer e re lated to the factors the district 14 co urt c onsi de re d to a sse ss the se ttl em en ts. A s dis cu sse d ab ove , in the m onths l ea din g 1 5 up to th e e v i d e n t i a ry h e a r i n g o n t h e s e t t l e m e n t s w i t h t h e W e i n s t e i n D e f e n d a nts , 16 Appellants wer e given m ultip le opportun ities to present the evidence they claim ed 17 the y a lr ea dy ha d and t o st at e w hy

the se ttl em en ts w ere not f ai r, a de qua te , or 18 reasonable. Consi d er i n g the stage of the proceedings, the am ount of discovery 19 produced to Appellants, Appellants’ m ultip le opportun ities to present evidence they 20 claim ed to have, and Appellants’ opp o rt u n i ty to cross-exam ine the witnesses33

1 pr es en te d by

N MS IC , it w as w ith in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc re tio n to c ur b Appe llants ’ 2 d i s c o v e ry. 3 { 56} Appe llants ne xt arg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by ru lin g that ca lc ula tio n of 4 da m ag es w as not im

portant to eva lua tio n of the se ttl em en ts. T he y gle anthi s arg um en t 5 fro m an ex ch an ge a t a

m oti on h eari ng a ft er

Appe llants state d th at

the y w an te d “ al l 6 doc um en ts r el at ing to the va ri ous inve stm en ts” in ord er “ to do a rea l c al cu la tio n w ith 7 adm issib le evidence as to w hat the loss o r gain .

. . m i g h t be on a particular 8 investm ent.” They

stated that “ the best way of doing th at is cash out, cash in.” 9 C o u n s e l f

o r Ap p e l l a n t s : So the re is co m ple xit ythe re . And wit hout 10 sim ply ha vin g ha d di sc ov ery , w e don’ t have 11 tha t i nf orm at ion

. 12 Court: Mr. Marshall, to m e, the issue a t this hear ing is n ot whether 13 y ou ha d the ab ili ty to m ak e tha t ca lc ula tio n now , but

. . . 14 w he the r som eb ody w ho i s m ak ing the de ci sio n to se ttl e 15 co ns id ered th os e fac ts

. 16 Co un se l fo r App el la nt s: I wan t t he fact s, Yo urHon or . 17 Co urt: I unde rs tand y ou w an t the f ac ts, but that’ s no t i m

portant f or 18 se tt le m en t p ur po se s. 19

. . . . 2 0 C o u n s e l f

o r Ap p e l l a n t s : I w a n t t o a s k s o me b o d y f r o m t h e 21 [N MS IC ] , . . . w ha t w as the ga in o r los s on 22 thi s p artic ular inv es tm en t. W e don’ t kn ow 23 th atin fo rm at io n. 24 Co ur t: I do n’t t hi nky ou ne edto kn ow t ha t at th is st ag e.34

1 { 57} Appe llants m isi nte rp re t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t 2 de ci de that c al cu la tio n of da m ag es w as ir

rel ev an t t o th e fa ir

ne ss, a de qua cy , a nd 3 re as ona

ble ne ss o f the se ttl em en ts: it ru le d tha t it w as not cr iti ca l to ev al ua tio n of the 4 s e t t l e m e n t s t ha t App ellan ts have the inform ation on which N MSIC ’ s dam ages 5 calculations were based, so long as NMS IC c ould dem onstrate to the dist rict court 6 th at it ad eq ua te ly co ns id ered th e p ot en ti al da m ag es . See H ershey , 2012 W L 475 8040 , 7 at *2 (stating th at “ [t] he fundam ental question is whether the district [ court] has 8 su f f i c i e n t fa ct s b efo re [i t] to in te ll ig en tl y ap pr ov e o r di sapp ro ve th e se tt le m en t.” 9 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 10 { 58} Furthe rm or e, Appe llants ’ c ont en tio n th at the dis tr ic t co urt did not co nsi de r the 11 potenti al dam ages is contrad i ct ed by the rec ord. T he district court m ade severa l 12 fin di ng s o f fact rel at edto po te nt ia l dam ag es . Add it io na ll y , in it s co nc lu si on s o f la w, 13 the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d tha t as se ssm en t of the se ttl em en t i nc lud ed e xa m ina tio n of

“ the 14 ran ge of r eas on ab le ne ss of th e se tt le m en t fu nd in li gh t o f th e b es t p os si bl e rec ov ery. ” 15 It f urthe r co nc lud ed

that N MS IC ha d c ondu ct ed suf ficie nt dis co ve ry

to “ fa ir ly 16 evaluate the .

. . r ange of [best] possi ble recovery .” In other conclusio ns, the district 17 court considered the “ com plexity of establishi ng dam ages,” recogni ze d t h at 18 Appe llants e sti m at ed

da m ag es to be in ex ce ss o f $300 , 000, 000 ba se d oninv es tm en t 19 los se s, a nd c ont em

pla te d the poss ibl e ty

pe s of da m ag es a va ila

ble und er F A T A

. T he se35

1 finding s and conclusio ns indicate that the district court properly considered dam ages 2 in it s as se ss m en t o f th e se tt le m en ts

. 3 { 59} Appellants also argue that the district court deprived th em of their rights under 4 FA T A , spe ci fi ca lly

the “ ri ght

to [Appe llants ’ ] r ew ar d and a tto rn ey f ee s, the r igh t t o 5 int er ve ne a nd p ar

tic ipa te a s aparty

in the alte rn at e ac tio n, a nd the r igh t t o pr es en t 6 evidence in the al t er nate action.” But Appellants wer e perm itted to in tervene as 7 pa rt ie s and, a s a lr ea dy dis cu sse d, w er e pe rm itt ed to pr es en t e vid en ce a t the f ai rn es s 8 he ar ing

. Be ca

use the pr opr ie ty

of the se ttl em en ts i s onappe al , Appe llants ’ r igh t t o a 9 rew ard and attorney

fee s has y et to be l i t i g at ed

. Thus , Appellants h ave not been 10 de pr iv edof t he se rig ht s. 11 { 60} A ppe l l a n t s ’ g e n e r a l a r g u m e n t s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt v i o l a t e d F A T A by 12 “ rubber-stam

ping ” the settlem ents are unpersuasive. As discussed abo ve, the district 1 3 co u rtr e qu e s t e dm e m o r a n d ao n Ap p e l l a n t s ’ o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e s e t t l e m e n t s m u l t ipl e 14 tim es, held sever al hearings, and cond ucted a two-day evidentiary

hearing. I t issued 15 seventy -three deta iled finding s of fac t. I n its evaluatio n , t h e d istrict court indul ged 16 se ve ra l pr es um

pti ons in Appe llants ’ f

av or . F or e xa m pl e, altho ugh the iss ue of the 1 7 c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t y o f

F A T A ’s r e t r o a c t i v i t y p r o v i s i o n w a s o n ap p e a l t o t h e S up r e me 18 Co urt, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ssu m ed that i t w as co nst itu tio na l. In spi te of it s r es er va tio ns 19 ab out w he the r Appe llants ha d ar igh t t o ob j ec t t o se ttl em en ts w ithde fe ndants on36

1 whom process wa s not served i n their qui tam actions, it also presum ed that 2 Appe llants ha d ar igh t t o ob j ec t t o th ose se ttl em en ts. Mo re ove r, a lth oughAppe llants 3 “ ha [d ] not

a rt ic ula te d avia

ble FATA c la im

a ga ins t any

of the [ W ei nst ei n] 4 D ef en da nts , ” the dis tr ic t c ourt ne ve rthe le ss a ssu m ed that Appe llants m igh t y et do s o 5 an d th er ef

or e as sum ed

the y ha d ar igh t t o ob

j ec t t o sett le m en ts w iththo se de fe ndants

. 6 The di st ric t co ur t d id no t “ rubb er-s ta m p” th e se tt le m en t ag reem en ts

. 7 { 61} Fi na lly , Appe lla nts ar gue tha t the dis tr ic t co urt vio la te d N MS A 1978 , S ec tio n 8 6-8-24 ( 2011 ). This statute provides that “ [n] othin g in thi s 2011 act shall prej udice 9 or im pa ir the r igh ts o f a qui tam

pla int if f pur suant to [FAT A ]

. ” Si nc e w e ha ve 10 determ ined that Appellants’ r ights under FA TAwe re not infringed, w e further 11 conclude that no violatio n of Section 6-8-24 occurred. Appellants also m ake severa l 12 sta te m e n t s th at

b e c a u s e o f th e i n a d e q

ua te dis co ve ry

“ the pr opos ed

se ttl em en t am ount s 13 ar e gr oss ly

ina de qu at e.” Othe r than th es e sta te m en ts, how ev er , Appe llants do n ot 14 ch al le nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s or con cl usi ons as to ad equa cy , f ai rn es s, 15 or r ea sona ble ne ss, w hic h in vol ve d anum be r of f ind ing s and c onc lus ion s onthe 16 se ttl ing de fe ndants ’ r es our ce s, the li ke lih ood of suc ce ss at tri al , a nd th e ro le of the 17 se ttl em en ts i n th e St at e’ s li tig at ionplan, a m ong oth er s. I n th e ab se nc e of 18 pa rt ic ulari ze d c ha lle nges t o th es e fi ndi ngs an d c onc lus ion s, w e do n ot a ddr es s 19 Appe llants ’ ge ne ra l a sse rt ion s th at the se ttl em en ts are ina de qu at e. See Ru le 12-37

1 213( A )( 4) ( sta tin g th at

“ [t ] he a rg um en t sh al l se t fo rth a spe ci fi c at ta ck on any f ind ing , 2 orsu ch fin di ng sh al l b e d eem edco nc lu si ve ”). 3 { 62} W e co nc lud e tha t the distri ct court di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inli m iti ng 4 discovery , nor did it fail to adequately assess the settlem ents. In addition, w e discern 5 no vi ol at io n o f FATA by th e d is tri ctco ur t. 6 2. Th e Se tt le m en t A gr ee m en ts ar e V ali d as o f M ay 2 015 7 { 63} Appellants, t o g ether w ith Am ici Ne w Me xico Found ation for Open 8 G ove rn m en t (N MF O G ) an d N ewMe xico Pr es s A sso ci at ion , a rg ue that the 9 se ttl em en ts are voi d f or thr ee r ea sons . F ir st, N MS IC did no t ha ve the po w er to 10 de le ga te auth or ity

to se ttle wit h D ef

en dants to the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee . S ec ond, 11 ev enif se ttl em en t au tho ri ty w as pr ope rl y de le ga te d, the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee w as a 12 publ ic body

sub j ec t t o th e re qui re m en ts of the O MAa nd f ai le d to c om

ply w iththo se 13 re qui re m en ts. S ec tio n 10 -5 -1

. Thi rd, the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee w as im

pr ope rl y 14 co nst itu te d be ca

use it did not co nf

orm w ith N MS IC ’ s se ttl em en t po lic y or S ec tio n 6- 15 8- 2( B) , w hic h st at es that “ [a ] ll ac tio ns of the [ N MS IC ] sha ll be by m aj or ity vot e, a nd 16 a m ajor it y

of t he m em

be rs sh al l co ns ti tu te a qu orum .” 17 { 64} Appellants m ade these ar gum ents in the district court as well. T he district court 18 dis ag re ed

a nd h el d th at

N MS IC prop erl y dele ga te d se ttl em en t auth or ity to the 19 L it ig at io n Com

m itt ee a nd tha t the O MAdoe s no t r equir e lit iga tio n de ci sio ns,38

1 in cl ud in g s et tl em en t d eci si on s, t o b e m ad e in a pu bl ic m eet in g. See § 10 -1 5- 1( H )( 7) 2 (excluding “ m eetings sub j ect to the attorney -client privilege pertaining to th reate ned 3 or pe ndi ng l iti ga tio n in w hic h the publ ic body is or m ay be co m e a pa rt ic ipant” f

ro m 4 the sc ope of

the O MA ). I n r ea ch ing thi s conc lus ion , the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d inpart on 5 the f ac t tha t NM SI C del eg at ed au tho ri ty to the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee in its S et tle m en t 6 Po li cy , whi ch was v ot edon an d app ro ve d b y NMSIC at a pu bl ic m eet in g. 7 { 65} NMS IC’ s posi tion o n appeal is m ultifaceted. Fi rs t , NMSI C ar gues that 8 Appe llants “ im

pli ci tly c onc ed ed ” tha t de le ga tio n o f se ttl em en t auth or ity to the 9 L iti gatio n Com

m itt ee w as pr ope r, a nd thus the iss ue is not pr es er ve d f or appe al

. N ex t, 1 0 i t a r g u e s t h a t “th e a c t i o n s o f t h e Li t i g a t i o nC o mm i t t e e a r e t h e v e ry typ e o f a t t o rn e y11 cl ie nt p ri vil eg ed

li tig at ion de ci sio n- m ak ing ex em pte d by [the ] O MA

. ” Ina ddi tio n, it 12 ar gue s th at

“ [e ] ve n if

the L iti ga tio n C om

m itt ee w er e subj ect to the O MA , the 13 pr oc es se s f

oll ow ed he re sa tis fi ed

[ the ] O MA ’ s purp ose s and the re fo re did not vio la te 1 4 [t he ] O M A

. ” F i n a l l y , i t m a i n t a i n s t h a t a n y v i o l a t i o n o f t h e O M A w a s c u r e dby 15 N MS IC ’ s r at if

ic at ionof the se ttl em en ts i n a pr ope rl y -n oti ce d publi c m ee tin g he ld i n 16 May 201 5, appr oxi m at el y

thi rty m onths af

te r the L iti ga tio n C om

m itt ee appr ove d th e 17 fir st set tl em en ts , and th at , th eref or e, th is is su e is m oo t. 18 { 66} W e beg in by

a ddr es sin g N MS IC ’ s pr es er va tio n and m ootne ss arg um en ts. T he 19 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion tha t the iss ue of w he the r se ttl em en t auth or ity w as pr ope rl y39

1 de le ga te d w as “ im

pli ci tly c onc ed ed ” is b as ed

on a ple ad ing in w hic h Appe llants 2 ar gue d th at

the re w er e no r ec or ds o f suc h ade le ga tio n and r eque ste d th at a ny r ec or ds 3 of delegation be produ ced. But Appellants also stated in that pleadin g that “ a blanket 4 de le ga tio n [ of

se ttl em en t author ity ] to the [s ta te inv es tm en t off ic er ]

. . . w oul d be in 5 derogation o f the statutory and fi d u ci ary

oblig ations of [NMS IC] m em bers 6 th em se lv es ” an d t ha t d eci si on s ab ou t “ se tt le m en t o f act ua l or po te nt ia l li ti ga ti on . . . 7 m ust be m ad e by

the

. . . [ N MS IC ] it se lf

, by vot e. ” By m aking the se a rg um en ts, 8 Appe llants suf

fi ci en tly ap p ri se d th e dis tr ic t c ourt of the ir c ont en tio n th at

the auth or ity 9 to s et tle li tig at ionr es ts s olel y w ithN MS IC

. T hus, thi s arg um en t w as suf fi ci en tly 10 pr es erv edforap pe al

. 11 { 67} A s to N MS IC ’ s arg um en t tha t this Co urt ne ed not ad dr es s Appe llants ’ 12 ar gum en ts a s to the O MA be ca use the May 2015 m ee tin g c ur ed a ny O MAvio la tio ns, 13 w e dis ag re e. E ve n if

a n issue is m oot as be tw ee n th e pa rt ie s, w e m ay a ddr es s it

if it 14 is an is sue “ of

sub stanti al p ub li c in te re st, a nd c ap ab le of r ep et iti on, y et

e va din g 15 review .” H

ow el l v

. H

ei m , 199 4- N MS C- 103, ¶ 7, 11 8 N

. M. 500 , 882 P

. 2d 5 41 16 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ). T he pr es en t m at te r sa tis fi es both of 17 these criter ia. In prom ulgatin g the OMA , the N ewMexico L egislatur e h as evinced 18 a strong interest in transparency in go ve r nm ent and agency

com pliance with the O MA 1 9 i s an i s s u e o f s ub s t an t i al p ub l i c i n t er es t . F u rt h er m o re , t h e p r o b l e ms i n NM SI C’s40

1 pr oc es se s he re are cap ab le of rep et it io n by it an d o th er ag en ci es . Se e Par ag on Fou nd., 2 In c. v . Sta te L iv es toc k B d. , 200 6- N MC A -0 04, ¶ 10, 138 N

. M. 761 , 126 P

. 3d 5 77 3 (s ta tin g th at

“ the im pli ca tio n of

the OMA is an im

portant p oli cy

iss ue that i s li ke ly 4 to occur again if th e is sue is not directly addressed” and exam ining the OMAissues 5 ev en th ou gh th e m at te r was m oo t). 6 { 68} W e m ove on t o th e pa rt ie s’ sub stanti ve a rg um en ts, whi ch pr es en t a se ri es of 7 que sti ons. F ir st, a re the ac tio ns of the L iti ga tio n Co m m itt ee voi d, be ca

use e ith er ( 1) 8 N MS IC im

pr ope rl y de le ga te d auth or ity

to se ttl e w i thD e f

e ndants , or

( 2) the L iti ga tio n 9 Com m ittee failed to c om

ply with the O MA? Second, did the May 2015 m eeting cure 10 an y im pr ope r de le ga tio n or vio la tio n of the O MA suc h tha t the se ttl em en ts are now 11 va lid ? 12 a. A ct ion s of

t he Li ti gat ion C om m it te e We re V oid 13 { 69} A s to the f

ir st que sti on, w e ag re e w ith Appe llants a nd A m ic i tha t the L iti ga tio n 14 Co m m itt ee ’ s a ct ion s w er e voi d be ca use the Co m

m itt ee did

not ha ve the auth or ity

to 15 se ttl e w ithD ef

en da nts

. I n a ddi tio n, e ve n if se ttl em en t auth orit y w as pr ope rl y 16 de le ga te d, the L iti ga tion Co mm it tee ’ s m ee tin gs d id n ot c om ply w iththe O MAa nd 17 he nc e were i nv al id . W e ad dr es s t he de le ga ti on is su e fi rs t. 18 { 70} In pertinent part, the Settl em ent Policy states that the Litigation Comm ittee 19 “ m ay a ct ive ly part ic ipa te in se ttl em ent

n e g o tiatio ns, a s a

ppr opr ia te , w iththe auth or ity41

1 of the [N MSIC ] for settlem ent resolution and related decisions.” I t also states that 2 “ the auth or ity

to se ttl e le ga l m at te rs r es ts not w iththe [ St at e In ve stm en t O ff ic er ] but 3 w ith [ N M S I C ’ s L ] i t i g a t i o n [ C ] o m m i t t e e . ” T h e S e t t l e m e n t P o l i c y s p e c i f i e s t h a t t he 4 L iti gatio n C om

m itt ee “ sha ll be c om

pr ise d of a t le as t thr ee [N MS IC ] m em be rs ” an d 5 pe rm its the G ove rn or ’ s ge ne ra l cou ns el to se rv e on the c om m itt ee . P ur suant t o th e 6 Se ttl em en t P oli cy , aL iti ga tio n C om m itt ee c onsi sti ng of

tw o N MS IC m em

be rs a nd 7 the G ove rn or ’ s gene ra l coun se l m et “ se ve n or

e igh t” ti m es to dis cu ss the se ttl em en t 8 ne got ia tio ns wi th D ef

en da nts

. T he L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee appr ove d th e se ttl em en t 9 ag re em en ts w ith D ef

en da nts w ith out obt ai nin g a vot e on the fi na l de ci sion by 10 N MS IC

. T he se se ttl em en t ag re em en ts w er e sig ne d on be ha lf of N MS IC by L iti ga tio n 11 Co m m it te e m em

be rs . 12 { 71} A s ac re at

ur e of statut e, N MS IC func tio ns s ole ly w ith in the pow er s gr an te d by 13 th e Leg is la tu re. Chalamidas v. Envtl. Im provement D iv. , 1984 -N MC A -1 09, ¶ 13, 102 14 N

. M. 63, 691 P

. 2d 6 4. N MS IC ’ s pow er s are li m ite d by S ec tio n 6- 8- 2( B) a nd S ec tio n 1 5 6

- 8

- 7 ( A ) a n d( E )

. U n d e r S e c t i o n 6

- 8

- 2 ( B ) , “[ a ] ll ac tions of the c ounc il sha ll be by 16 m aj or ity

vot e, and a

m aj or ity of the m em

be rs sha ll co nst itu te aquo ru m . ” (E m pha sis 17 added). T he only

m ention o f N MSIC ’ s ability to delegate its responsib ilities states 18 tha t “ [t ] he [ N MS IC ] m ay deleg at e adm ini str at ive a nd i nve stm en t- re la te d f unc tio ns 19 to the state investm ent officer .” Sec tion 6 -8-7(A ). Sec tion 6 -8-7(E ) provides that16 Si nc e w e co nclu de tha t the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee did

not ha ve the auth or ity 7 17 to acton th e se tt le m en ts , we nee d n ot ad dr es s wh et he r it was p ro pe rly con st it ut ed

. 17 G ive n ou r re sol uti on o f the de le ga ti on iss ue w e co uld pe rh ap s a voi d 8 1 8 dis c u s s i o n o f t h e O M A i s s u e s . W e h a v e d e t e rm i n e d t o g i v e t h e O M A i s s ue s f ull 19 co nsi de ratio n be ca

use the y ar e square ly pr es en te d an d be ca use it is i m

portant t o f

ill 20 out our O MAlaw a s it

appl ie s to pol ic y -m ak ing sub co m m itt ee s of pub lic e nti tie s.

42 1 N M S I C m a y “ f

o rm a n d u s e c o m

m i t t e e s , ” b u t o n l y t o “ s tu d y a nd m ak e 2 re co m m en da tio ns t o [ N MS IC ]

. ” N otw ith standi ng the S et tle m en t P oli cy , the se 3 pr ovi sio ns d o no t pe rm it N MS IC to de le ga te auth or it y to se ttl e lit iga tio n to a 4 co m m it te e. In de ed , readto ge th er, t he y pro hi bi t s uc h d el eg a t i o n. Cf. Kerr-M cG ee 5 Nu cl ea r C

orp. v . N. M

. E nv tl. I m prov em en t B d. , 1981 -N MC A -0 44, ¶ 52, 97 N

. M. 88, 6 637 P.2d 38 (stating that “ [a] dm inistrative bo dies and officers cannot delegate power , 7 authorityand functions which un der th e law m ay be exercised on ly by them , which 8 ar e qua si-

j udi ci al in ch ar ac te r, or w hic h re qui re [] the ex er ci se of j udgm en t” ). Be ca

use 9 the L i t i g a t i o n C o m

m i t t e e d i d n o t h a v e t h e au t h o r i t y t o d o s o , i t s ap p r o v a l of the 10 se ttl em en ts i n 20 13 and 2 014 w as w ith out a ny bin din g e ff

ec t. 7 11 b. Litigation Com m ittee Was Subj ect to the OMA 12 { 72} E ve n if N MS IC ’ s de le ga tio n of se ttl em en t au tho ri ty to the Li ti ga tio n 1 3 Co m m i t t ee h ad b ee n p ro p er , th e Li t i g at i o n Co m m i t t ee v i o l at e d t h e OM A’s 14 re qui re m en ts f

or c los ed m ee tin gs. H en ce , it s a ct ion s are voi d fo r tha t re as on as w el l. 15 W e ex pla in. 843

1 { 73} T he O MAe m

bodi es the L eg isl at

ur e’ s dec laratio n that “ [the ] pub lic pol ic y of 2 t h i s s t a t e [ i s ] t h a ta l l p e r s o n s a r e e n t i t l e dt o t h e g r e a t e s tp o s s i b l e i n f o rm a t ion 3 re ga rd ing the a ff

ai rs of go ve rn m en t and the of fi ci al a ct s of

tho se of fi ce rs a nd 4 em pl oyees wh o re pr es en t t he m .” Sect io n 1 0- 15 -1 (A). In ke ep in g with th is po li cy , we 5 co ns tru e th e OMA’s p ro vi si on s b ro ad ly andth ei r ex cep ti on s n arro wly. Cf

. State ex 6 rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Cons equences , 2012 -N MC A -1 04, ¶ 22, 287 P. 3d 3 64 7 (“ W e em

pha siz e, how ev er , tha t [ the ] I PR A sho uld be c onstru ed

br oa dly to ef fe ct ua te 8 its pur pose s, an d co urts shou ld avoi d narr owde fi nit ion s th at w oul d de fe at

the int en t 9 of the L eg isl at

ur e. ”) ; se e als o N MS A 1978 , § 14- 2- 5 (1 993) (s ta tin g th at , und er the 10 IPRA , “ it is declared to be the public pol icy of this state, that all persons are entitled 11 to the gr ea te st p oss ibl e inform at ionr eg ar din g th e af fa ir s of gov er nm en t and the 12 of fi ci al a ct s of

pub lic of

fi ce rs a nd e m

plo y ee s[ , ] ” w hic h is ne arl y ide nti ca l t o th e 13 po li cy de cl arat io n i n t he OMA). 14 { 74} T he O MApr ovi de s th at 15 A ll m ee tin gs o f a quor um of m em be rs of a ny board , c om

m ission, 1 6 a d mi n i s t r a t i v e a d ju d i c a t o ry b o d y or o the r po lic y[ -] m ak ing bod yof a ny 17 st at e ag en cy . . . , he ld fo r th e pu rp os e o f fo rm ul at in g p ub li c p ol ic y , . . . 18 dis cu ssi ng p ubl ic bus ine ss or tak ing anyac tio n w ith in t

he aut hori tyof 19 or t

he de le gat ed aut hori tyof anyboa rd , c omm issio n or other 20 pol ic

y[ ] m ak ing body a re de cl ar ed

to be pub lic m ee tin gs o pe n to the 21 publ ic a t all t im es , e xc ep t a s othe rw ise pr ovi de d inthe c onst itu tio n of 2 2 Ne w M ex i co o r t h e [ OM A]. 23 Sect io n 1 0- 15 -1 (B) (e m ph as is ad de d)

.4 W e not e tha t the re is nothin g inth e statu te s go ve rn ing N MS IC e xpl ic itl y 9 5 in di cat in g th at it ha s t he au th or it y to set tl e li ti ga ti on eit he r. Compare N MS A 197 8, 6 §§ 6- 8- 1 to -2 4 (1 95 7, as am en de d t hr ou gh 20 15 ), wi th NMSA 197 8, § 58 -2 4- 5( A) 7 (1 983) ( sta tin g th at

the I ndus tr ia l an d A gr ic ult ur al F inanc e A uth or ity

“ sha ll ha ve a ll 8 the pow er s ne ce ssary

or c onve nie nt t o c ar

ry out a nd effe ctua te the pur

pose s and 9 pr ovi sio ns o f the I ndus tr ia l and A gr ic ult ur al Fi na nc e A uth or ity

A ct , inc lud ing , . . . the 10 po wer . . . to su e an d b e su ed ”), and N MS A 197 8, § 72-1 4- 21 (19 55) (s ta tin g that the 11 In te rs ta te S tr eam

Co m m iss ion“ sha ll ha ve pow er to institute in an y

of the c ourts o f 12 this state, o r in any other state, or in any of t he federa l courts of t his state or any other 13 st at e, an y

act io ns , su it s an d sp eci al pr oc eed in gs ne ces sa ry to en ab le it to acq ui re, o wn 14 an d ho ld ti tl e to lan ds forda m si te s,” a nd ot he r si te s) , and NMS A 1978, § 36-1-19(B) 15 (1 985) ( sta tin g th at

“ a board of c ounty c om m iss ion er s m ay

c ontrac t w ithpr iva te 16 counsel for le g al assistance to or repre sentation o f the county ” and that “ [s] uch 17 pr iva te c ouns el sha ll ha ve the sa m e pow er s of c om pr om ise , sa tis fa ct ionor

r el ea se in 18 ci vil pr oc ee din gs a s ar e he ld by dis tr ic t a tto rn ey s” ). N MS IC state s init s br ie f tha t the 19 power to settle litigation is v ested in the At t o rn ey Ge neral and that the A ttorney 20 Ge ne r a l de l e gat e d su c h po w e r t o N M S I C or t o N M S I C ’ s c ouns e l , bu t c onceded at 21 or al arg um en t th at th e reco rd do es no t refle ct su ch d e l eg at io n. See § 36 -1 -1 9 and 22 N MS A 197 8, § 36- 1- 22 (1 875- 1876 ) (s ta tin g tha t the A tto rn ey G en er al r ep re se nts the 2 3 sta te a n d t h a t t h e A t t o rn e y G e n e r a l h a s t h e au t h o r i t y t o s e t t l e m a t t e r s i n v o l v i n g th e 15 sta te ). Mo re ove r, the se ttl e m e n t a gr ee m en ts w er e sig ne d by m em be rs of the L iti ga tio n 16 Co m m itt ee or the G ove rn or , not

the N ewMe xic o A tto rn ey G en er al ’ s O ff

ic e or 17 N MS IC c ouns el

. O the r than th is b ri ef state m en t, both p art ie s pr ed ic at e the ir 18 ar gum en ts o n th e as sum pti on tha t N MS IC ha s se ttl em en t auth or ity

. W e the re fo re do 19 not address this iss ue further and assum e for the purposes of this opi nion that NMS IC 20 ha d a ut ho rit y

to set tl e wit h t he de fen da nt s. In re D oe , 198 2-NMS C-099, ¶ 3, 98 N. M. 21 540, 650 P.2d 824 (stating that “ courts risk overloo king im portant fac t s or legal 22 considerations when they take it upon th em selves t o ra i s e, argue, and decide legal 23 questio ns overloo ke d by the law y ers w ho tailor the case to fit w ithin their legal 24 theories.” ( alteration, internal quotation m arks, and citation om itted)). 44 1 { 75} W e co nc lud e tha t this pr ovi sio n a ppl ie d to the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee be ca

use 2 the L iti ga tio n C om

m itt ee w as int en de d to be a“ pol ic y [-] m ak ing body ” an d it s 3 m eetings were for the purpose of taking an action within th e authority of N MSIC

. 945

1 N MS IC , whi ch is unqu es tio nably sub j ec t t o th e O MA , a tte m

pte d to de le ga te it s 2 au tho ri ty

to ta ke ac tio n on the se ttl em en ts to the Co m m itt ee . I t i s pa te ntl y

c ontrary to 3 the O MA ’ s purp ose to per m it a publ ic body to avoi d th e O MA ’ s r equir em en ts s im ply 4 by delegating its respo nsibi lities to a sm aller body . I ndeed, Se ction 10 -15-1(B) states 5 that “ [n ]o p u blic m eeting once convened th at is otherwise r equired to be open 6 pursuant to the [O MA] shall be closed or d issol ved into sm all groups or com m ittees 7 fo r the pur

po se of pe rm itt ing the c los ing of the m ee tin g. ” W e ag re e w itha199 0 8 Advisory

Opinion bythe then-Attorney Ge neral that “ it is the nature of the act 9 perform ed by the com

m ittee, not its m akeup or proxim ity to the final decision, which 10 de te rm in es whet he r an ad vi so ry co m m it te e is su bjec t t o o pe n m eet in gs st atut es .” 11 N

. M. A tt’ y G en . O p. 90- 27 (19 90)

. T he curr en t At tor ne y G en er al ’ s Ope n M ee tin gs 12 A ct Compliance Guide ech oe s t hi s t hi nk in g, s ta ti ng , 13 even a no n- st a tut or y c om m i t t e e app oi nt e d by a pu bl i c bo dy

m ay 14 constitu te a “pol i cy[- ]m ak ing bo dy ” subjec t to the [OMA ] if it m akes 15 any

de ci si on s o n b eh al f of

, for m ul at es reco m

m en da ti on s t ha t ar e bind ing 16 in any

le ga l or pra ct ic al w ay on, or oth er w ise e sta bli she s po lic y

f or the 17 publ ic body . A pub lic body m ay not e va de it s ob lig at ion s un de r the 18 [O MA ] by

de le ga ti ng it s r es pons ibi lit ie s f or m ak ing de ci sio ns and 19 ta ki ng fin al act io n t o a co m m it te e. 20 p. 9 (8t h e d. 2 01 5) ht tp :/ /www.n m ag .go v/ om a-an d- ip ra-n m -s un sh in e-l aws .asp x. 21 { 76} In Paragon Found ation , I nc. , this Court considered whether the acts of an 22 ind ivi dua l on be ha lf of apub lic a ge nc y

w er e subj ec t t o th e O MA

. 200 6- N MC A -0 04,46

1 ¶¶ 2-3. Af

ter a federa l district court ordered th e p l ai n t i ffs to rem ove their livestock 2 fr om U nit ed S ta te s F or es t S er

vic es land, the F or es t S er

vic e an d th e ex ec uti ve dir ec tor 3 of the N ewMe xic o L ive sto ck Bo ar d ( Bo ar d) e ntered in to a m em or an dum of 4 un de rs ta nd in g (M OU) go ve rn in g h ow t he li ve st oc k wo ul d b e rem ov ed

. Id

. T he 5 pla int if fs f ile d su it, a lle gin g th at

the MO U vio la te d th e O MAbecau se “ no pub lic 6 m ee tin g of t he Bo ard w as he ld and a m aj or ity of the Bo ar d di d no t a

ppr ove or 7 au th or iz e th e MOU be fo re th e MOU was ex ecu te d b y ” th e ex ecu ti ve di rect or . Id

. ¶ 4. 8 The B oard m oved f

or summ ary

j udgm ent on the grou nd that th e MO U w as not vot ed 9 on o r ex ec ute d by a quor um of the Bo ar d and tha t, be ca use the Bo ar d di d no t so a ct , 10 th e OMA d id no t ap pl y . I d. ¶ 5

. Th e d istrict court granted the m otion for sum m ary 11 jud gm en t. Id

. ¶ 7. 12 { 77} O n a

ppe al , w e af

fi rm ed

. Re ly ing on S ec tio n 10 -1 5- 1( B) , quo t e d a bove , w e he ld 13 tha t “ [u ] nde r the law , if a quor um of the Bo ar d m em

be rs did not ac t on the MO U , the 14 OMAwa s inappli cable, there w as no OMAviolatio n, and sum m ar y ju d gm ent was 15 proper.” Paragon Found., Inc. , 2006 -N MC A -0 04, ¶¶ 12, 13. W e al so note d that the 16 ex ec uti ve dir ec tor ’ s “ larg el y uni la te ra l a ct ion[ in s ign ing the MO U w as ] non -b ind ing 17 an d m ean in gl es s, as he can on ly act p ur su an t t o t ho se po wers de li ne at edin th e Co de .” 18 Id

. ¶ 24

.47

1 { 78} Im

portantl y , w e not ed

that the e xe cutiv e dir ec tor “ did not ha ve the auth or ity 2 or appr ova l of

the Bo ar d to e nte r int o th e MO U ” and th at the “ MO U w as not 3 approved or autho rized by a quorum of the Board in public or private m eetings.” Id

. 4 ¶¶ 15, 16. W e re pe at ed ly

r ei te rate d th e fa ct

that m em be rs of the Bo ar d ha d lim ite d or 5 no kn owledge of the MO U bef ore it wa s s i g ned, and that som e m em bers we re 6 “ su rp ris ed ” whe n p res en te d wi th it aft er i ts ex ecu ti on . Id

. ¶ ¶ 1 7- 22. T he se f

ac ts 7 cl earl y dis tin gui sh P aragon Fo unda tio n, I nc . f rom the present m atter. Unlike in that 8 ca se , he re , N MS IC unanim ousl y ap pr ove d the Se ttl em en t Pol ic y , pur porte dly giv ing 9 th e Lit ig at io n C omm it te e au th or it y to acton it s b eh al f. See Si gne d M inu te s, pg. 5- 7, 1 0 NMSIC Mee t i n g Ju n e 2 6 , 20 1 2 , a v ail abl e a t 1 1 http:/ /w w w . sic

. sta te

. nm . us/ upl oa ds/ Fi le L i n k s / 3 9 1 5 3 c c 7 c 3 9 a 4 9 6 c 8 2 3 e 7 a 6f dba 7da 12 d6/ 6_26 _12_ SI C_ SI G N E D_M INUTES.pd f. It i s cl ear t ha t NMS IC ful ly e ndor se d th e 13 ac tio ns o f the Lit ig at ion Co m m itt ee a nd i nte nde d it

to ta ke a ct ionthat w oul d be 14 su bjec t t o t he OMA if a ct edon by the ful l NMS IC. 15 c. Litigation Com m ittee Ac tions Were Subj ect to the OMA 16 { 79} H av ing de te rm ine d that the L iti gatio n C om

m itt ee w as abody

sub j ec t t o th e 17 O MA , w e tur

n to w he the r the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee ’ s ac tio ns w er e su bjec t to the 18 O MA

. N MS IC r el ie s on B oard of Co unt y Co m m iss ion er

s v . O gde n to ar gue tha t the 19 L iti gatio n C om

m itt ee ’ s a ppr ova l of

the se ttl em en ts f

al ls w ith in an e xc eptio n to the17 At the tim e of the Ogden de ci sio n, the li tig at ione xc ep tio n w as S ec tio n 10 -1 5- 10 18 1( E)(5 ). 48 1 O M A

. 19 94

- N M C A

- 01 0, 11 7 N

. M

. 18 1, 87 0 P

. 2d 14 3. T he f oc us of the Ogden 2 opin i o n i s o n co n s t ru ct i o n o f S ec t i o n 1 0 -1 5 -1 (H )( 7 ) ( t h e l i t i gation exceptio n), which 10 3 states that “ m eetings subject to the attorney -client privilege pertaining to th reate ned 4 or pe ndi ng l iti ga tio n inw hic h th e publ ic body is or m ay be co m e a pa rt ic ipant” a re not 5 su bjec t t o t he OMA. Ogden , 1994-NMC A- 010 , ¶ 1 3. T here, the issue was w hether 6 the “ thr ea te ne d or

pe ndi ng litiga tio n” e xc ep tio n in cl ude d th e Bo ar d of 7 Co m m is si on ers ’ de ci si on to su e th e d efen da nt s. Id

. The Co urt concluded “ that 8 ‘ p en d i ng’ or ‘ threatened’ litigation can include litigatio n that the pub lic bodym ay 9 ini tiate a nd l eg al dis put es tha t have not y et re ac he d the co urts” a nd tha t “ unde r [this 10 ex ce pti on] , [the Bo ar d of Co m m iss ion er s] c oul d pr ope rl y dis cu ss and d ec ide to fi le 11 suit agains t [the d] efendants in a closed session .” Id

. ¶ ¶ 15- 16. 12 { 80} More pertinent to our purpos es is the Court’ s rej ection of t h e ar gum ent that 13 “ even if [the B oard of Comm issio ners wa s] allowed to obtain legal advice in closed 14 sessio n , [i t] wa s required to m ake its decision to sue [the d] efendants in an open 15 m eeting.” Id

. ¶ 17. W e re as one d th at , unl ike som e of the other ex ce pti ons, the 16 lit iga tio n e xc ep tio n “ doe s no t r equir e tha t a de ci sio n r eg ar din g li tig at ion be m ad e in49

1 an open m eeting.” Id.; se e, e . g. , § 10-15-1(H )(6) ( actual approval of cer tain purchases 2 m ust be m ade in open m eeting). 3 { 81} A m ic i arg ue that the hol din g in Ogden ha s be e n ov e rr ul e d by the B oard

of 4 Co mm issio ners of Doña Ana Count y v. Las Cruces Sun-News , i n w hi c h t hi s Court 5 sta te d th at

“ se ttl em en t a gr ee m en ts e nte re d in to b etw ee n part ie s are out sid e the 6 privilege” addressed by the litigatio n exception. 2003 -N MCA -102, ¶ 25, 134 N. M. 7 283, 76 P. 3d 3 6, ov er rul ed on o the r gr ound

s by Rep ub li ca n Pa rt

y o f N.M. v. N.M. 8 Taxation & Re venue D ep’t , 2012 -N MS C- 026, ¶ 16, 283 P. 3d 853. Bu t the f oc us o f 9 tha t ca se w as on w he the r ex ec ute d se ttl em en t ag re em en ts inv olv ing a publ ic enti ty 10 were s ub

ject t o p ub li c d is cl os ur e u nd er t he IPRA. Id

. ¶ ¶ 1, 25

. T he ho l di ng that 11 settlem ent agreem ents are disclos able under the IPRA does not contradict the Ogden 12 hol din g th at the de ci sio n to se ttl e m ay be m ad e in a clos ed m ee tin g. Ba se d on Ogden , 1 3 w e co n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt d i d n o t e rr i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e O M A w a s not 14 vio la te d by

the L iti ga tio n C om

m ittee’ s a

ppr ova l of

the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en ts i n 15 pr iv at e m eet in gs . 16 { 82} How ever, the d i s t rict court’ s analy sis did not go far enough because other 17 provisi ons of the OMAwe re violated. For instance, Se ction 10 -15-1(I)( 1) states that 18 if

[ the de ci sio n to hol d ac los ed se ssi on i s] m ad e in an ope n m ee tin g, [ it] 19 sha ll be appr ove d by a m aj or ity vot e of a quor um of the pol ic y [- ] m ak ing 20 body ; the auth or ity f or the cl osur e an d the subj ec t t o be dis cu sse d sh al l 21 be state d w ithr ea sona ble spe ci fi ci ty

in the m oti on c al lin g fo r th e vot e50

1 on a

c los ed m ee tin g; the vot e sha ll be take n ina n op enm ee tin g; and the 2 vo te of e ach in di vi du al m em be r sh al l b e rec or de d i n t he m in ut es . 3 { 83} Se ct ion10- 15- 1( I) (2 ) pr ovi de s tha t w he n the de ci sio n to hol d ac los ed se ssi on 4 is n ot m ad e in a

pub lic m ee tin g, “ the c los ed m ee tin g shal l not be he ld unti l pu bli c 5 notice, appropriate under the circum stances, stating the specific provision of the law 6 au tho ri zi ng the c los ed

m ee tin g and s ta tin g w ithr ea sona ble spe ci fi ci ty

the sub j ec t t o 7 be dis cu sse d is giv en

to the m em

be rs a nd t o th e ge ne ra l publ ic

. ” Fi na lly , S ec tio n 10

- 8 15- 1( J) state s th at 9 th e m i n u t e s o f t h e o p e n m e e t i n g t h a t w a s c l o s e d o r t h e m i n u t e s of the 10 ne xt o pe n m ee tin g if the cl ose d m ee tin g wa s separate ly sc he dul ed sha ll 11 sta te that the m at te rs dis cu sse d inthe c los ed m ee tin g w er e lim ite d on ly 12 to those spec if ie d inthe m oti on f

or c los ur e or

in the not ic e of

the 13 se pa rate cl ose d m ee tin g. T his sta te m en t sha ll be ap pr ove d by the pub lic 14 body

. . . a s part

of the m inu te s. 15 { 84} T he part ie s do no t di rect us t o e vid en ce in the r ec or d th at N MS IC a nd the 16 L iti gatio n C om

m itt ee c om

pli e d w i thth e s e r e q

u i r e m e n ts. T hus, the se pr ovi sio ns o f the 17 O MA w er e vio la te d an d the L iti ga tio n Co m m itt ee ’ s ap pr ova l of the set tle m en t 18 ag reem en ts was i nv al id

. 19 d. M ay 2 015 M ee ti ng C ur ed OM A V iol at ion s 20 { 85} The f

inal questio n is whether the settlem ent agreem ents becam e valid when 21 nin e of

the e le ve n m em

be rs of N MS IC vot ed

to ap pr ove the m

in May 201 5.51

1 A ssu m ing N MS IC ha s the pow er to ent er int o su cha gr ee m en ts, w e co nc lud e tha t the 2 May 201 5 v ot e rec ti fie d t he de le ga ti on is su e. 3 { 86} W e al so c onc lud e tha t the May 201 5 m eet in g cu re d th e O MAvio la tio ns. 4 “ [P ] ro ce dur al de fe ct s in[ co m pli an ce w iththe O MA ] m ay be cure d by takin g pr om

pt 5 c or r e c t i ve action.” Klei nbe rg v . B d. of E duc

. of A lbu que rque P ub. Sc h. , 19 88 -NMCA6 014, ¶ 30, 107 N

. M. 38, 751 P. 2d 722. P re vio us c as es ha ve a ff irm ed the c ur e of

the 7 OMA vi ol at io ns whe re th e cu rin g act io ns were t ak en fou r da y s l at er, se e id. ¶ 15, a nd 8 el ev en m on th s l at er. Se e P ale nic k v. Ci tyofR io R anc ho , 2012 -N MC A -0 18, ¶ 1, 270 9 P. 3d 1 281 , re v’ d on oth er gro unds by , 2013 -N MS C- 029, 306 P. 3d 447. H er e, the 10 curi ng m ee tin g oc curr ed thi rty m onths a ft er

the f ir st s et tle m en t wa s a

ppr ove d by

the 11 L iti gatio n C om

m itt ee . A lth oughthi rtym onths s tr et ch es the bou nds of “ pr om pt” 12 re m ed ia l ac tio n as cont em pla te d in Kl ei nbe rg , w e co nc lud e tha t i t w as suf fi ci en t t o 13 re m edy the L iti ga tio n Com m itt ee ’ s im

pr ope r ac tio n be ca

use “ the le gis la tur e did

not 14 int en d to und

uly bur de n the appr opr ia te e xe rc ise of gov er nm en ta l de ci sio n- m ak ing 15 an d a bil ity to ac t. ” 1988 -N MC A -0 14, ¶ 31. “ T o r

ule ot he rwis e w oul d im

pr ope rl y 16 el ev at e fo rm

ove r substanc e” a nd w re ak ha voc on a

pr oc es s a lr ea dy

f ra ught w ith 17 co m pl ex it y . Id

. Most im portantly , the May

2015 m eeting was pr ec ed ed by proper 18 notice to the pu blic, inclu d ed a p ublic agenda and was open to the pu blic, N MSIC 19 m em bers publiclyvoted o n the settlem ents, and m inutes of the m eeting wer e52

1 pu bl is he d o nl in e. See htt p:/ /w w w . sic

. sta te

. nm .us/state -i nve stm en t- co unc il. as px 2 (providin g access to N MSIC m eeting calendar, and agendas and m inutes of NMSI C 3 m eetings) (last visited Mar. 17, 2016). T he purpose of the OMAwa s thus achieved 4 by thi s p u b l i c m eet in g. Se e Kl ei nbe rg , 1988-NMC A- 014, ¶ 31 (concluding that an 5 O MA vio la tio n wa s cur ed w he re “ [t ] he loc al board , in af fo rd ing [the pla int if

f] af ull 6 an d f ai r he ar ing in co m

pli an ce w ith due pr oc es s guarante es , an d ult im at el y , in t ak ing 7 a public vot e and openly announ cing its decisio n in a fo ru m wher e the interested 8 publ ic could observe the action, carr ied out th e intent and purpo se of the [O MA] ”). 9 { 87} W e re co gni ze that our hol din g c oul d be se ena s stre tc hin g th e not ionof pr om pt 10 re m ed ia l a ct ionbe y ond the br eakin g po int , effec tiv el y giv ing li ce nse to publ ic 11 ag en ci es to fl out

O MAstandard s w ith out

pe na lty

. W e ca

uti on s tr ongl y

a ga ins t any 12 suc h re ad ing a nd e m pha siz e tha t our de ci sio n to not inv al ida te the se ttl em en ts i s 13 dr ive n by

the f ac t tha t the y w er e subj ec te d to r ea sona ble a nd a ppr opr ia te r ev ie w by 14 the dis tr ic t cour

t. T ha t inde pe nde nt re vie w—w hic h we ha ve ap pr ove d—p ro vid es us 15 assurance that the public fisc has been protected. W ithou t the presence o f judicial 16 re vie w w e w oul d not be tole rant o f the de lay se enhe re . I n a ddi tio n, w e ar e co nf ide nt 17 that our ruling as to the reac h and effe ct o f th e OMA in sit uations such as we review 1 8 h e r e w i l l r e s u l t i n s u i t ab l e c au t i o n b y p ub l i c a g e n c i e s o f a l l s t r i p e s . T o t h e e xte nt53

1 publ ic a ge nc ie s f

ai l t o m ee t the ir obl iga tio ns unde r the O MA , the pub lic —i nc lud ing 2 Am ici—will have strong authorityto enforce c om pliance. 3 { 88} W e also e m

pha siz e tha t the r at if

ic at ionof the se ttl em en ts at the May 201 5 4 m ee tin g do es not

ope rate re tr oa ct ive ly to m ak e the se ttl em en t agr ee m en ts v al id a s of 5 th e da te th ey

were o rig in al ly sig ne d. See P alenick , 2012-NMC A- 018, ¶ 9 (stating that 6 “ no a uth or ity in N ewMe xic o su

ppor ts the [ d e f e n d an t’ s] a tte m

pt t o r etro ac tiv el y

m ak e 7 the pr ior

inv al id act ion va lid

a nd e ff ec tiv e as of

the da te it

w as take n” ). T he 8 se tt le m en t ag reem en ts be cam e v al id on ly at th e Ma y 20 15 m eet in g. 9 { 89} Given this hold ing, the district court considered and approved settlem ents that 10 we re void at the tim e. The questio n arises w hether this requires that the entire m atter 11 be rem anded fo r re co nsideration. W e conclude that rem and for w hat would be a 12 he ar ing of

f orm onl y is not

in the be st i nte re sts of

the pub lic , the c ourts, or

the part ie s. 13 T he dis tr ic t c ourt a

ppr ove d th e se ttl em en ts on thei r m er its

. W e ha ve f ound no e rr or 14 in its process or final decision, w ith the exception of the delegation and the OMA 15 iss ue s. T he se iss ue s do not spe ak to the m er its of th e se ttle m en ts. Re qui ri ng 16 re co nsi de ratio n of

the sub stanc e of

the se ttl em en ts w oul d se rve no purpos e at thi s 17 poi nt.54

1 e. No IP RAViolation Sh ow n by A ppellant s 2 { 90} Finally , in the course of their argum ents, Appellants also m ake severa l 3 refe rences to vi olation s of t he IPRA and argue th at t he settlem ent agreem ents wer e 4 “ ke pt s ec re t for m onths. ” T he dis tr ic t cour t conc lud ed tha t “ [t ] he re is no e vid en ce of 5 an y a tte m pt t o sh ie ld the se se ttl em ents f ro m the I PR A

. Mo re ove r, the [ s] et tle m en t 6 [a ] gr ee m en ts ha ve be en publ ic ly fi le d inthi s a ct ionand the [ dis tr ic t c ] ourt ha s he ld 7 a public hearing about them .” W e agre e w ith the dis trict court. The IPRAprovides 8 fo r publ ic a cc es s to re co rd s; i t do es not r equir e publ ic e nti tie s to pr ovi de r ec or ds i n 9 th e ab se nc e o f a req ue st forth em . See N MS A 1978 , § 14-2 -8 (A ) (2 009) ( sta tin g th e 10 procedures for r equesting publi c re cords). On appeal, Appella n t s d o n ot argue that 11 th ey req ue st edreco rd s fr om

NMSIC an d w e r e de ni ed

. See N MS A 197 8, § 14 -2

- 12 12( A )( 2) ( 1993 ) (s ta tin g th at “ [a ] n a ct ion to e nf

or ce the [ IP RA ] m ay

be br ough t 13 by

. . . ape rs on w hose w ri tten re que st h as be ende nie d” ). Appe llants ha ve f ai le d to 14 de m on st rat e th atth e IPRA was v io la te d h ere. 15 { 91} Insum , the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee did

no t ha ve the auth or ity

to se ttl e w ith 1 6 De fe n d an t s h er e a n dwe re v er s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s co n cl u s i o n t o t h e c o n t ra ry. We 17 al so h old

that the L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee m ee tin gs v iol at ed the O MA’s notic e an d 18 docum entation requirem ents. H o we ver, the settlem ent agreem ents wer e validated55

1 w he n th ey

w er e ap pr ove d by

N MS IC in anope n m ee tin g in May 2015

. W e af fi rm the 2 di st ric t cou rt’s c on cl us io n t ha t Ap pe ll an ts ha ve no t s ho wn a v io la ti on of t he IPRA. 3 3. The DistrictCour t did not Er r in D enying A ppellant s’ Motion t o 4 Disqu alify the A ttorn ey Gene ral’s Offic e 5 { 92} Fi na lly , Appe llants a rg ue that the dis tr ic t co urt er re d in d ism iss ing the ir

m oti on 6 to d isqua lif

y f orm er A tto rn ey G en er al , G ar y K ing , fo r co nf

lic ts of int er es t i nvol vin g 7 represe nt a t i onb y

h i s of f i c e o f N M S I C

. T he y

m a i nt a i n t hatt he d i str i c tc ourt 8 erroneously

ruled that they

lacked standing to raise these issues. I n fact, the district 9 co ur t re

jecte d Ap pe ll an ts ’ m ot io n o n i ts m eri ts as t o t wo o f th ei r th ree a ll eg at io ns . 10 { 93} As to the third allegation, the dis t ri ct court ruled that Appellants lacked 11 standi ng t o m ove f

or dis qua lif ic at ionof the A tto rn ey

G en er al ’ s of

fic e ba se d onthe 12 fa ct that a m em be r of that of fi ce ha d se rv ed

a s c ouns el to NMS IC

. G en er al ly 13 spe ak ing , “ onl y a cur

re nt or fo rm er cl ie nt h as standi ng t o m ove f or dis qua lif ic at ion 14 of c ouns el ba se d ona n a lle ge d c onf li ct of int er es t. ” E ri c C. S ur et te , A nnot at ion , 15 Stan ding

of Person, O ther than Form er Client, to Seek Disqualificat ion of

Attorney 16 in Ci vi l A ct ion , 72 A. L

. R. 6th 563 § 2 ( 2012 ); cf

. Sanc he z v . Sie m en s T

rans m iss ion 17 S y s. , 1 991-N MC A -0 28, ¶

36, 112 N

. M. 236 , 814 P

. 2d 1 04 ( sta tin g th at “ [t ] o th e 18 ex te nt tha t em

plo y er [/re spon de nt] at te m pts to ra ise [a

c onf lic t of int er es t be tw ee n th e 19 pe tit ion er

a nd h er a tto rn ey ] on c la im an t’ s[ /pe tit ion er ’ s] be ha lf , how ev er , w e fa il to 20 se e h ow em

pl oyer ha s s ta nd in g” ), re v’ d in par t on oth er gro unds by , 1991-NMS C-56

1 093, 112 N

. M. 533, 817 P. 2d 726. H ow ev er , a nonc lie nt pa rty m ay ha ve standi ng t o 2 m ove for disqu alification when “ the nonclient establishes that th e conflict prej udices 3 orin jure s t he no nc li en t’s o wn ri gh ts .” Su ret te , supra , a t § 2; cf

. E vi nk v . P ek in I ns. 4 Co

. , 460 N

. E

. 2d 1 211, 121 4 (Il l. App. Ct

. 198 4) ( sta tin g th at the “ pla int if

fs w oul d 5 ha ve no st an di ng t o c ha ll en ge [th e] defe ns e co un se l’s ab il it y to rep res en t [t wo 6 de fe ndants ] w ith out

som e show ing that this r ep re se nta tio n a dve rs ely a ff ec ts the ir 7 in te res ts ”). 8 { 94} H e r e , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rth e l d ah e a r i n g o n Ap p e l l a n t s ’ mo t i o n t o d i s qu a l i f y. 9 Af ter the hearing, it concluded that Appellants did no t have standin g to challenge a 10 co nf lic t of inte re st betw ee n the A tto rn ey G en er al ’ s off ic e and N MS IC

. W e inf

er f ro m 11 this rulin g that the district court determ ined that Appellants failed to dem onstrate that 12 the ir int er es ts w er e suf

fi ci en tly a dve rs el y

a ff ec te d by the a lle ge d c onf

lic t of int er es t 13 to o ve rc om e the ge ne ra l r ule

. N ei the r a tr an sc ri pt o f the he ar ing nor a CD r ec or din g 14 of it is in the r ec or d on ap pe al

. In the ab se nc e of a tr an sc ri pt o r CD , w e pr es um e the 15 di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng is su pp or te d by t he ev id en ce. Michaluk v. Burke , 19 87 -NMCA16 044, ¶ 2 5, 10 5 N. M. 670 , 735 P. 2d 1176 (“ Where the record on app eal is incom plete, 17 the r uli ng o f the tr ia l c ourt i s pr es um ed to be sup porte d by

the e vid en ce . ”) ; se e 18 Sandoval v. B aker Hughes Oilfie l d Op eration s, I nc. , 200 9- N MC A -0 95, ¶

65, 146 19 N

. M. 853 , 215 P. 3d 791 (“ It is the duty of the ap pe llant t o pr ovi de ar ec or d a de qua te57

1 to r ev i e w t h e i s s u e s o n ap p e a l

. ” )

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt d i d n o t e rr in 2 de nyin g Ap pe ll an ts ’ m ot io n. 3 CON CLU SION 4 { 95} A lth ough we rever se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng a s to the de le ga tio n of 5 se ttl em en t auth or ity

to N MS IC ’ s L iti ga tio n C om m itt ee a nd i ts c onc lusionthat the 6 OMA wa s not violated, w e conclude that the settlem ents are now valid because they 7 have been approved by NMS IC a t a public m eeting. W e discern no error in the district 8 co urt’ s othe r ru lin gs. W e the re fo re a ff irm the dis tri ct co urt’ s a

ppr ova l of

the 9 se tt le m en ts wit h t he W ei ns te in , Meyer, andBro id y Defen da nt s. 10 { 96} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 11 12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e 14 WE CO NCUR:

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 18 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e