Maldonado v. Cannizzaro
257 So. 3d 733
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Charles Maldonado (The Lens) submitted multiple Louisiana Public Records requests seeking "D.A. subpoenas" issued Jan. 1, 2016–Apr. 27, 2017; the Orleans Parish D.A. declined full production citing undue burden, file organization, off-site storage, and redaction costs.
- Maldonado filed a writ/mandamus action seeking production and attorney's fees; the D.A. produced limited materials and disputed scope and format issues during pretrial meetings.
- Trial testimony from assistant D.A.s described file organization (no centralized list/index of D.A. subpoenas), off-site storage, large volume (8,000–9,000 cases), and heavy manpower/redaction demands.
- Trial court ordered production of all D.A. subpoenas/D.A. Notices from closed files and screened/rejected files for the requested period, exempted subpoenas in open cases, and awarded attorney's fees to be quantified later; court found D.A. not arbitrary or capricious.
- D.A. appealed (challenging partial grant and fees); Maldonado answered seeking broader production (open files) and a finding of arbitrary and capricious conduct, plus additional fees for defending the appeal.
- Appellate court denied Maldonado’s motion to dismiss the appeal, affirmed the trial court: required production for closed/rejected files, upheld exemption for open files, affirmed fee award (remanding to quantify appellate fees), and rejected arbitrary-and-capricious claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to dismiss appeal | D.A. acquiesced via statements/partial compliance, so appeal should be dismissed | Production of a single document and outreach does not show unconditional acquiescence | Denied — no clear intent to abandon right to appeal |
| Production of subpoenas in closed/rejected files | Maldonado: requests reasonable; D.A. must produce subpoenas from closed/rejected files for the period | D.A.: search would be unreasonably burdensome, costly, thousands of files, no index | Affirmed trial court: D.A. failed to meet burden to justify withholding; production required for closed/rejected files |
| Exclusion of subpoenas in open files | Maldonado: court should order production from open files too | D.A.: open files pertain to pending criminal litigation and are exempt under La. R.S. 44:3(A) | Affirmed: subpoenas in open cases exempt from disclosure until litigation concludes |
| Arbitrary and capricious / Civil penalties | Maldonado: D.A. acted arbitrarily/unreasonably, warranting penalties and damages | D.A.: timely responses, explanations, cooperation, and partial production show considered action | Affirmed: record does not show willful or unreasoning action; no arbitrary/capricious finding; trial court’s discretion upheld |
| Attorney's fees for trial and appeal | Maldonado: entitled to fees for prevailing in part and for defending appeal | D.A.: contests fee award | Trial court and appellate court: fees awarded under La. R.S. 44:35(D); remanded to quantify additional appellate/post‑judgment fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Shane v. Parish of Jefferson, 209 So.3d 726 (La. 2014) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of access)
- Landis v. Moreau, 779 So.2d 691 (La. 2001) (access presumption and liberal construction of public records law)
- In re Matter Under Investigation, 15 So.3d 972 (La. 2009) (resolve doubts in favor of public access)
- Beckett v. Serpas, 112 So.3d 348 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (burden-based exception when segregation of records would be unreasonably burdensome)
- Vandenweghe v. Parish of Jefferson, 70 So.3d 51 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2011) (operation-of-office interference limits on record inspections)
- Elliott v. District Attorney of Baton Rouge, 664 So.2d 122 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1995) (limitations on burdensome public‑records requests)
- Koerner & Lambert, A Prof. Law Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 363 So.2d 546 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1978) (acquiescence in judgment not lightly presumed)
- Innocence Project New Orleans v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 129 So.3d 668 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (discretionary civil penalties under La. R.S. 44:35(E))
- Toups v. City of Shreveport, 60 So.3d 1215 (La. 2011) (definition of arbitrary and capricious)
- Four States Realty Co. v. City of Baton Rouge, 309 So.2d 659 (La. 1975) (administrative action not arbitrary when exercised after due consideration)
- State Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Monteleone, 106 So.3d 153 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2012) (award of additional appellate attorney fees)
- Whitbeck v. Champagne, 149 So.3d 372 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2014) (factors for appellate fee awards)
- McFadden v. Import One, Inc., 56 So.3d 1212 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2011) (consideration of attorney skill and time for appellate fee awards)