Court records show $100-per-day damages began Feb. 16, 2023 and continue until compliance
GALLUP, N.M. – A publicrecords request submitted more than three years ago has resulted in a court ruling against the McKinley County District Attorney’s Office, with a state district judge awarding Cibola County resident Harry L. Hall $100 per day beginning Feb. 16, 2023, and continuing while the office remains out of compliance with New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act.
Court records obtained by the Cibola Citizen show District Judge Brenna Clani-Washinawatok made the ruling during a Sept. 2 writ hearing in Hall’s lawsuit against the DA’s Office.
“The court will award damages from date 02/16/2023,” the official hearing notes state.
Minutes later, after discussing the requirements of IPRA, the judge said, “$100 a day will continue to accrue if there’s continued non compliance.” She directed Hall’s attorney, Thomas Grover, to draft a written order following the hearing. The final dollar amount remains unknown because the written order had not yet been entered in the records obtained by the Citizen, and it remains unclear when the DA’s Office will be considered in compliance.
A Request Dating to 2023
The dispute began Feb. 1, 2023, when Hall submitted an IPRA request to then-District Attorney Bernadine Martin.
Hall, a Grants resident, veteran and retired law-enforcement officer, requested records showing how many employees had been hired since Martin took office who fell into several categories: people older than 62, people with disabilities, military veterans and current or former certified police officers.
He also sought records showing how many employees in those categories had resigned or been laid off.
The request did not receive a timely response.
On Feb. 16, 2023, Hall filed a complaint with the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office seeking assistance obtaining the records.
Court filings show the Attorney General’s Office subsequently contacted the DA’s Office repeatedly regarding the request. A September 2023 letter asked Martin’s office to communicate with Hall, provide responsive records and explain any justification for withholding them.
According to court filings, the Attorney General’s Office followed up again in February and April 2024 after receiving no response.
In May 2024, the Attorney General’s Office issued a disposition letter finding that the DA’s Office had violated IPRA regarding Hall’s request and asked the office to attend IPRA training. Additional correspondence continued into 2025.
A November 2025 letter from the New Mexico Department of Justice told Hall that the agency’s efforts had still not resulted in confirmation that the requested records had been produced. The letter said the DA’s Office had failed multiple times to respond to either Hall or state officials over a “significant period.”
Hall Takes the Dispute to Court
Hall filed his lawsuit Jan. 22, 2026, in the Eleventh Judicial District Court.
His verified petition sought a writ of mandamus – a court order requiring a government official or agency to perform a legal duty – compelling the DA’s Office to comply with IPRA.
Hall alleged that the office had neither produced responsive records nor issued a legally sufficient denial explaining what records were being withheld and why.
The court initially issued an alternative writ of mandamus in February ordering the office to produce the requested records within 30 days or explain why the writ should not become permanent.
The DA’s Office later moved to quash that writ, arguing that it was procedurally deficient.
During a July 16 hearing, attorneys for both sides worked through those procedural concerns. Clani-Washinawatok ultimately allowed Hall to amend the writ and scheduled another hearing for Sept. 2.
The Sept. 2 Hearing
At the Sept. 2 hearing, attorney Chris Marquez represented the DA’s Office and Grover represented Hall.
The court focused on whether the DA’s Office had met its obligations as custodian of the requested records.
Marquez acknowledged there was no dispute that the DA’s Office had responsibilities under IPRA, while arguing that the real dispute concerned what Hall had requested and whether responsive records existed.
The defense argued that Martin eventually responded to Hall in February 2024 and that IPRA does not require a government agency to create a record that does not already exist.
Grover argued that Hall had never received the kind of formal response required under state law.
The judge ultimately found that Hall’s request required a response and that waiting approximately one year was not sufficient.
“The custodian did have an obligation to respond,” the hearing record states.
The judge found it appropriate to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus and determined that Hall was entitled to statutory damages.
The question then became when those damages should begin and how long they should continue.
Marquez asked the court to calculate damages from Feb. 16, 2023, through Feb. 9, 2024, when Martin provided a response.
Grover argued that the February 2024 response did not satisfy IPRA because it did not contain a legally sufficient denial identifying what records could not be produced and who was responsible for the denial.
Clani-Washinawatok sided with Hall on that issue.
The court found that the later response did not conform with the requirements of state law, established Feb. 16, 2023, as the starting date for damages and said the $100-per-day award would continue during noncompliance.
The judge also told Marquez that if the office’s position was that responsive records did not exist, it should issue a denial stating that “sooner rather than later.”
Grover told the Citizen after the hearing that Hall is also entitled to attorney fees and litigation costs.
“The DA’s Office is supposed to comply with the law,” Grover said. “That is a clear message that this judge sent forward.”
Hall previously told the Citizen that he had spent approximately $12,000 of his own money pursuing the case.
Leadership Changed While Dispute Continued
The records dispute began while Martin was district attorney, but the McKinley County DA’s Office has since gone through a major leadership change.
Martin resigned earlier this year while facing separate removal proceedings brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez. The removal petition accused Martin of several management and legal failures unrelated to Hall’s lawsuit, including failures to properly prepare prosecutions and subpoena witnesses, violations of state procurement law and maintaining a private law practice while serving as district attorney.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham later appointed John Bernitz to lead the McKinley County DA’s Office.
Bernitz told the Citizen Sept. 3 that he inherited Hall’s case and knew relatively little about the original dispute when he took office.
He acknowledged that Martin did not initially respond within IPRA’s required timeframe.
“I think Ms. Martin really didn’t know how to handle it,” Bernitz said. “She sat on her hands about it for a while before she responded.”
Bernitz said he did not believe Martin intentionally ignored IPRA requirements, but rather did not understand what the law required.
He also explained why the office disputes parts of Hall’s request.
Bernitz said the office does not routinely compile some of the demographic and employment information Hall sought. Employees are largely hired based on résumés, he said, and the office may not possess a database identifying employees by age, disability status or other requested characteristics.
“The information isn’t compiled, and I don’t even know if we can compile some of it,” Bernitz said. “Unless they disclosed it in their résumé, we wouldn’t have any idea about that.”
That issue does not eliminate the office’s obligation to respond, according to Grover. His position is that if responsive records do not exist, IPRA still requires the government to properly communicate that through a legally sufficient denial.
Current office says procedures have changed
Bernitz said the current administration has made changes intended to prevent similar public-records problems.
When he took over, Bernitz said, the office had 17 employees despite being authorized for 34. It has since grown to 29 employees.
He said the office previously lacked an officially designated records custodian. A custodian has now been appointed and trained, and Bernitz said both he and that employee have reviewed guidance from the Attorney General’s Office and participated in IPRA training.
“We’ve gotten on track with the timelines and the responsibilities of assigning a custodian of records,” Bernitz said.
Grover also distinguished Bernitz from the administration under which Hall’s dispute began.
“In my correspondences with the current DA, he’s been very responsive in the questions I’ve presented to him,” Grover said.
What Remains Unresolved
The court records obtained by the Citizen establish that Clani-Washinawatok awarded damages beginning Feb. 16, 2023, and said $100 per day would continue to accrue during continued noncompliance.
What is not yet known is the final amount Hall will receive.
That depends, in part, on when the DA’s Office satisfies the requirements of IPRA and how that compliance is reflected in the court’s forthcoming written order.
The Citizen contacted Bernitz again Tuesday morning asking whether the office has now completed its response to Hall’s 2023 request. He had not responded by deadline.
The court record also shows that Grover was directed to prepare the written order after the Sept. 2 hearing.
Until that order is entered and the compliance date is established, the total damages and attorney-fee award remain undetermined.
Hall’s case is Harry L. Hall v. McKinley County District Attorney’s Office, et al., D-1113-CV-2026-00059, in the Eleventh Judicial District Court.