101 So. 3d 98
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Landry sued Clerk of Court Lena Torres for delay in producing public records under Louisiana Public Records Act (La. R.S. 44:1 et seq.).
- Requests were dated Sept. 26, 2011 (employee names, salaries to 2010, and current employee list as of Aug. 31, 2011) and Sept. 28, 2011 (Aug. 2011 bank statements).
- Torres’s counsel provided the employee lists and salaries by Sept. 30, 2011 and informed about bank statements on Oct. 5, 2011, noting redaction for confidential items.
- Plaintiff filed mandamus and requested penalties after more than 28 days passed for the bank statements; records were later produced Nov. 18, 2011 (cover letter dated Nov. 16, 2011).
- Trial court held there was a delay and awarded costs and civil penalties ($1,100) but found no actual damages and deemed production not timely; court found delay arbitrary and capricious due to miscommunication.
- Appellate court reversed, holding no Public Records Act violation and rejecting the arbitrary/capricious finding; three-day notification provision did not apply, and the trial court’s factual finding about intent was not supported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a Public Records Act violation due to delay in production | Landry argues Clerk delayed production of Aug. 2011 bank statements | Torres contends any delay was inadvertent and not a violation | No violation; delay not arbitrary or capricious; act not violated as no custodian questioned public-record status. |
| Whether penalties could attach where custodian acknowledged records were public | Landry seeks penalties under La. R.S. 44:35 | Torres argues penalties unavailable if records acknowledged public or no custodian-initiated question | Penalties not applicable; no custodian-initiated question about public status. |
| Whether delay constitutes arbitrary and capricious conduct justifying penalties | Landry claims deliberate withholding to hinder campaign | Torres attributes delay to internal miscommunication | No evidence of intentional or arbitrary conduct; no basis for penalties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Reed, 668 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1996) (3-day notification rule inapplicable when custodian does not question public status)
- Foster v. Kemp, 657 So.2d 681 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1995) (supports that penalties require custodian-initiated public-record status question)
- Twardzik v. Orleans Parish School Board, 876 So.2d 855 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (revives that improper motive requires substantial evidence)