259 So. 3d 1235
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mercato filed a writ of mandamus and a Limited Motion for New Trial after litigation over a public records request related to the "501 Elysian Fields" project; judgment was signed Jan. 9, 2017.
- The clerk’s certificate did not show mailing date; trial court found envelope postage machine stamp Jan. 10, 2017 and held Mercato’s Jan. 20, 2017 motion timely.
- Exhibit G was an email exchange between Commissioner Deveney and Mr. Costello concerning Deveney’s planned statement to the HDLC; Mercato sought its production.
- Trial court treated Exhibit G as a public record and ordered production; defendants challenged that ruling and the award of attorney’s fees.
- On appeal, the court reviewed timeliness (law of the case), whether Exhibit G was a public record (and whether any exception applied), and entitlement to attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 44:35.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion for new trial | Mercato: motion filed within seven-day period because mailing occurred Jan. 10 | Defendants: motion untimely because mailing date uncertain/earlier | Court: motion timely; postage stamp Jan. 10 controls; law of the case bars relitigation |
| Is Exhibit G a public record? | Mercato: email used/possessed in performance of public duties, thus public | Defendants: Exhibit G was a draft/private communication not subject to disclosure | Court: Exhibit G is a public record (emails fall within definition; used in HDLC work) |
| Applicability of public-record exceptions/privacy | Mercato: no constitution/statutory exception applies; content limited to public statement | Defendants: privacy or draft-exemption should shield it | Court: no applicable exception; privacy not implicated by content restricted to statement preparation |
| Entitlement to attorney's fees | Mercato: as prevailing party on object of suit, mandatory award under La. R.S. 44:35(D)(1) | Defendants: they did not act arbitrarily/capriciously; Mercato did not fully prevail | Court: Mercato prevailed as to object; Ferguson controls; trial court must award attorney's fees (amount to be determined later) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (appellate manifest-error standard for factual findings)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (when legal error infects factfinding, appellate court conducts de novo review)
- Shane v. Parish of Jefferson, 209 So.3d 726 (La. 2015) (emails used in public duties are public records; custodianship can be multiple and based on custody or control)
- Capital City Press v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Metro. Council, 696 So.2d 562 (La. 1997) (public records law construed liberally in favor of access)
- Ferguson v. Stephens, 623 So.2d 711 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (prevailing party on public-records object entitled to attorney's fees under La. R.S. 44:35)