Attorneys in Yazzie case seek $450K from state
N.M. argues it shouldn’t be responsible for all fees in education lawsuit it lost
Lawyers who successfully sued the state of New Mexico for failing to sufficiently fund public schools are asking a judge to award them about $450,000 in legal expenses.
But opposing attorneys argue the state should not bear all of those costs — in part, because some of the expenses seem excessive or unnecessary.
New Mexico law allows either side in a civil case to ask for reimbursement of legal costs if the court rules in their favor.
In late March, roughly three months after state District Judge Sarah Singleton of Santa Fe ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Yazzie-Martinez v. State of New Mexico case, attorneys for both plaintiffs submitted line-item
expense accounts — $118,006 for lead plaintiff Wilhelmina Yazzie; $331,418 for Louise Martinez — for reimbursement.
Those expenses include paying expert witnesses, including travel and hotel fares, the cost of taking depositions, printing and copying of documents and calls made by the attorneys.
The plaintiffs paid about $60,000 to Linda Goetze, a senior research economist for Utah State University’s School of Teacher Education who visited public schools to determine the quality of early childhood education programs. She then appeared as an expert witness.
State lawyers counter that Goetze could have conducted much of that research by phone and that her daily expenses exceeded the state’s per diem and mileage rate of $95 a day. And, they said, her total reimbursement rate is excessive and should be reduced by at least $20,000.
Those lawyers also singled out other costs, such as a research-and-report expense of $1,501 in the Yazzie account that was not itemized and unspecified court phone calls made by attorneys on the Martinez side.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs already have filed responses and stand by their original estimates.
“They have a right under the rules to respond with objections, but obviously we think that we are entitled to costs as a rule, and it is up to the judge now to decide,” said Ernest Herrera, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which represents plaintiff Louise Martinez.
The latest legal salvo between the plaintiffs and the state comes just a week before both parties are expected to file arguments about whether the state is doing enough to satisfy the court ruling.
Singleton said in an email last week that she will review any of those filings and then decide how to proceed.
Singleton ruled state leaders and the Public Education Department have violated the state Constitution and “the rights of at-risk students by failing to provide them with a uniform statewide system of free public schools sufficient for their education.”
The case played out over eight weeks in Singleton’s court in the summer of 2017, with dozens of expert witnesses testifying for both sides.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham last week approved a roughly $7 billion state budget, with $3.25 billion for public education. That includes more than $480 million in new money to implement programs, raise teacher salaries and funnel more money into support for at-risk students. That group includes English language learners, those with learning disabilities or children who come from impoverished families.
During the recent 60-day legislative session, representatives for both the Yazzie and Martinez side said they did not think that was enough to meet Singleton’s mandate.
Yazzie wrote in an opinion piece that appeared in The New Mexican that more needs to be done.
“The funding increases for public education passed in this legislative session only serve to backfill budgets and do not even return basic school programming to 2008 levels,” she wrote. “They will not adequately cover the critical programs needed to improve outcomes for all students — especially for our Native American children, our Latino/Hispanic children, our English language learners, our low-income children and our children with special needs.”