Carter v. City of Shreveport, 244 So. 3d 659

Carter (requester) served voluminous public-records requests on the City of Shreveport, the Police Chief, and the City Attorney seeking personnel, time-sheet, vehicle, and budgeting records from the Shreveport Police Department.
Defendants acknowledged receipt and repeatedly requested additional time due to disorganized/hand-compiled records and redaction needs; parties agreed to staggered production dates for 2014 and 2015 records.
Carter filed a writ of mandamus alleging arbitrary and capricious withholding under the Louisiana Public Records Act and sought penalties, costs, and attorney fees.
Trial court ordered Carter to pay $1,000 for copies, found Defendants did not act arbitrarily or capriciously (denying civil penalties), and awarded Carter $2,000 in attorney fees.
On appeal, the court affirmed denial of penalties and copying-cost ruling but found the trial court abused its discretion on attorney fees, increasing the fee award and adding appellate fees; appellate costs were split.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether civil penalties under La. R.S. 44:35(E)(1) were warranted for failure to respond within 5 days	Carter: City unreasonably delayed and thus acted arbitrarily and capriciously, entitling him to penalties	City: Requests were burdensome; recordkeeping primitive; City communicated and sought extensions in good faith	No penalties—court found delay reasonable given volume, manual compilation, and ongoing communication
Whether copying costs charged were excessive	Carter: Should pay standard per-page rate (15¢/page = $588.60); labor charges are unauthorized	City: Substantial labor required; initial invoice nearly $3,979; $1,000 ordered by trial court was reasonable compromise	$1,000 copying charge affirmed as reasonable
Whether redaction of time sheets was improper	Carter: Time sheets are public and must be produced unredacted	City: Certain information required redaction to protect nonpublic data; redaction issue not contemporaneously objected to at trial	Waived on appeal for failure to object at trial; court did not address substance
Whether attorney-fee award was adequate	Carter: Trial court’s $2,000 award was insufficient given 21.7 hours at $175/hour	City: Did not challenge affidavit or hours at trial	Trial court abused discretion; award increased to $3,797 (trial) + $1,200 (appeal) = $4,997; appellate costs split

Cenac v. Public Access Water Rights Ass'n, 851 So.2d 1006 (La. 2003) (standard of appellate review for factual findings)
Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error / clearly wrong review explained)
Stobart v. State Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (reasonableness of factfinder's conclusions under manifest-error review)
Toups v. City of Shreveport, 60 So.3d 1215 (La. 2011) (definition and application of "arbitrary and capricious")
Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933 (La. 1984) (public-records statutes construed liberally; public right to access)
Dwyer v. Early, 842 So.2d 1124 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2003) (trial court discretion in awarding attorney fees)
Bohn v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 482 So.2d 843 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1986) (reasonableness standard for attorney-fee awards)
Genusa v. Dominique, 708 So.2d 784 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1998) (allowing appellate attorney fees when party prevails below and on appeal)