100 So. 3d 896
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- LEAN and Oakville seek supervisory review of a trial court order compelling disclosure of members' identities in a dispute over a Coastal Use Permit expansion near Oakville.
- Industrial Pipe sought to expand a landfill into wetlands; expansion was denied by Plaquemines Parish as inconsistent with Coastal Zone guidelines.
- Intervenors argued the expansion would harm Oakville residents and environmental interests and challenged discovery requiring member information.
- Trial court ordered LEAN and Oakville to disclose all members in Plaquemines Parish and to produce communications with Parish officials; writ denied initially.
- Appellate court granted the writ, held associational standing under Hunt framework, and found trial court abused its discovery discretion.
- Case posture involves timing of writ and the propriety of broader discovery in a standing dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the writ is timely despite the interlocutory nature | LEAN/Oakville argue timeliness under August order | Industrial Pipe contends untimely under Carter rule | Writ timely; new judgment created by August order supports review |
| Whether LEAN and Oakville have associational standing under Hunt | Lean/Oakville meet Hunt three-prong test | Insufficient harm to members to establish standing | Yes; LEAN and Oakville have standing to intervene |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering further member disclosure | Additional member data not likely to yield relevant evidence | Disclosure necessary to determine standing and settlement issues | Abused discretion; reverse and remand for further proceedings |
| Whether discovery of member information is relevant to associational standing under Hunt | Information aids standing determination | Unnecessary for proving standing | Discovery was improperly broadened; information not needed to prove standing |
| Impact of Vieux Carre and related precedent on standing analysis | Injury-in-fact can be aesthetic/recreational | Vieux Carre controls standing | Rejects narrow reading; adopt Hunt framework; uphold standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm., 482 U.S. 333 (1977) (three-part associational standing test)
- Louisiana Hotel-Motel Ass'n v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 385 So.2d 1193 (La. 1980) (harm to members required for prong one of Hunt)
- Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents, and Associates, Inc. v. Hotel Royal, L.L.C., 55 So.3d 1 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2010) (discussion of injury and associational standing; predated dissent note on standing)
- In re Marriage of Kuntz, 929 So.2d 75 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006) (relevance and evidentiary value in discovery; broader discovery standard)
- MTU of N. Am., Inc. v. Raven Marine, Inc., 475 So.2d 1063 (La.1985) (feasibility and expediency standards in discovery)
- Carter v. Rhea, 785 So.2d 1022 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001) (timeliness analysis for interlocutory judgments and writs)