118 So. 3d 1249
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Johnson sought a digital copy of the Board's licensure database and related public-record information.
- The Board advised the request could not be produced as requested and offered a limited mailing list, citing confidentiality and policy concerns.
- Johnson modified his request to allow access to review the licensure database with a copy; Board delayed scheduling.
- Board proposed pre-screening by staff to redact confidential data and billed labor costs; estimated time was weeks to months.
- Johnson filed a mandamus petition; the trial court ordered compliance within 10 days, with reimbursement capped at $500 and attorney’s fees awarded.
- Board appealed, challenging public-record status and cost provisions, prompting appellate review of access rights and costability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the requested records public records under the Public Records Act? | Johnson asserts records are public records. | Board contends records may contain confidential data and may be burdensome. | Yes, records are public records. |
| May the custodian redact confidential data and charge costs to reproduce records? | Plaintiff seeks full access; costs should be reasonable. | Custodian may redact confidential info and charge reasonable costs. | Custodian may redact and charge reasonable costs; reimbursement capped and later amended. |
| What is proper relief and cost allocation on mandamus? | Plaintiff would obtain records; willing to pay up to $4,200 if needed. | Costs should be limited and balanced with burden on operations. | Judgment affirmed as amended; costs to defendant; reimbursement range set between $500 and $4,200. |
Key Cases Cited
- Title Research, Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933 (La. 1984) (public records statute permits multiple access options)
- St. Tammany Parish Coroner v. Doe, 48 So.3d 1241 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2010) (public records access and format flexibility)
- Johnson v. City of Pineville, 9 So.3d 313 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2009) (electronic format of public records favored)
- Williams Law Firm v. Board of Supervisors of LSU and A&M College, 878 So.2d 557 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2004) (redaction of non-public information permissible)
- Capital City Pub. v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council, 696 So.2d 562 (La. 1997) (constitutional access right to public records)