168 So. 3d 727
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Journalists sued LSU Board of Supervisors and its chair after a 2013 presidential search, seeking records (resumes, interview logs, applicant names/qualifications) under Louisiana’s Public Records Act.
- District court (April 30, 2013) ordered immediate production of records for 35 "active" candidates, 6–7 shortlisted candidates, interview details, and applicant names/qualifications; damages/fees reserved.
- Procedural disputes: defendants sought stays and writs; contempt sanctions were later imposed for nonproduction but documents were ultimately delivered to the court under a confidentiality stipulation and produced in camera.
- District court (Oct. 23, 2013) awarded plaintiffs attorney fees and $100/day civil penalties per plaintiff for the period March 27–Sept. 30, 2013.
- On appeal, the court considered whether LSA‑R.S. 44:12.1 (records of applicants) limited disclosure, whether LSU had custody/control of consultant Funk’s records, and whether penalties/fees awards complied with statutes.
- Appellate court held that (1) only true "applicants" as defined by §44:12.1 are subject to disclosure, (2) the record did not show all 35 were applicants, (3) the three interviewed candidates (and one who withdrew) were applicants and their records must be produced, (4) LSU’s refusal did not warrant statutory civil penalties, and (5) attorney fees must be capped at Attorney General rates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether records on consultant Funk’s website are public records under LA Public Records Act and §44:12.1 | §44:12.1 does not exempt the requested records; broad public right of access. | §44:12.1 limits disclosure to actual "applicants"; many names were recruiting targets, not applicants; also lack of custody/control over Funk’s records. | §44:12.1 controls; "applicant" means someone who overtly seeks consideration (application, interview, or clear expression). 35‑name list not shown to be all applicants; Funk’s records about applicants are discoverable if they concern applicants. |
| Definition of "applicant" under §44:12.1 | Plaintiffs: treated broadly to include those identified on the search list. | Defendants: applicant requires formal application; recruited persons are not applicants. | Court defines applicant as one who expresses desire to be considered (application, interview, or verbal/electronic indication); mere informal conversations or passive inclusion on a list not enough. |
| Whether custodian’s failure justified civil penalties under §44:35E | Plaintiffs: penalties valid for period of nonproduction. | Defendants: penalties only trigger for failure to respond under §44:32 (notification duty), not for length of production delay; LSU complied with §44:32. | Civil penalties reversed: statute applies to failure to give written notification within three days under §44:32; record showed LSU met notification duties and defendants acted in good faith. |
| Attorney fees award and statutory cap under §44:35F | Plaintiffs: request AG‑rate award was appropriate; district court’s higher rate justified. | Defendants: award exceeded statutory cap (AG rates). | Fee award reduced to Attorney General approved rate ($175/hr), total $30,808.75; district court erred in awarding higher rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capital City Press v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council, 696 So.2d 562 (La. 1997) (public employment applications generally public absent specific statutory exemption)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for reversing trial court factual findings)
- Cleco Evangeline, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Com’n, 813 So.2d 351 (La. 2002) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Holly & Smith Architects, Inc. v. St. Helena Congregate Facility, Inc., 943 So.2d 1037 (La. 2006) (de novo review of statutory interpretation; harmonizing statutes)