291 So.3d 730
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Taleta Wesley submitted three broad public-records requests (Sept. 12–13, 2018) seeking two years of emails, text messages, phone logs, and Personnel Action Forms (PAFs).
- Ascension Parish’s IT search returned roughly 185,000 responsive emails and ~3,400 PAFs. The parish custodian, Andria Dollar, estimated ~3,700 hours to review emails and ~90 hours for PAFs.
- Instead of providing the statutorily required written estimate or beginning review/redaction, the Parish filed a declaratory-judgment action asking the court to set a reasonable fee and time to comply.
- The trial court denied Wesley’s procedural exceptions and ordered Wesley to pay $10,000 for review/redaction. Wesley appealed. She also filed a reconventional demand seeking mandamus/damages for the Parish’s alleged failure to respond, but that demand was not resolved at the declaratory-judgment hearing.
- The appellate court reversed the $10,000 fee portion of the judgment (finding abuse of discretion given the parish’s failure to follow statutory notice/reply duties and that no review had occurred), affirmed other aspects, remanded, and taxed appeal costs to the Parish.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wesley) | Defendant's Argument (Parish) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May a public body sue to have a court set a fee for review of requested records? | Public Records Law does not give public entity the right to sue to set costs. | Statute contemplates court may determine a fee; parish sought judicial determination. | A public body may seek judicial determination of a fee, but procedural compliance matters. |
| 2. Was the request so burdensome that a review/redaction fee was appropriate? | Request not unlawfully burdensome; fee improperly restricts access. | Massive volume (185K emails, 3.4K PAFs) justifies a fee for time to review/redact. | Fees permitted only for extraordinary requests; here imposition was an abuse of discretion because parish never complied with statutory notice/review duties. |
| 3. Did naming the requestor as defendant and ordering pre-review payment chill public-access rights? | Suing Wesley and imposing fee before review chilled constitutional right to access. | Parish needed court guidance to protect taxpayer resources. | Court agreed with Wesley: imposing a fee before statutorily required communications and any review chilled access; fee award reversed. |
| 4. Are private-cell-phone text messages used for business public records, and was that resolved? | Texts sent/received for parish business are public records. | Parish contended it was not custodian of some texts and some may not be public. | Not reached on appeal: parish did not seek declaratory relief on custodianship/record status; assignment presents nothing for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carolina Biological Supply Co. v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 202 So.3d 1121 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2016) (public access to records is a fundamental right)
- Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish Government, 264 So.3d 456 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2018) (annoyance/oppression/burden insufficient to defeat access; review notice requirements explained)
- Roper v. City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge, 244 So.3d 450 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2018) (trial court has discretion to award a review fee in appropriate circumstances)
- Sewell v. Benoit, 841 So.2d 24 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2003) (court-ordered postproduction billing for redaction reversed on appeal)
- Johnson v. City of Pineville, 9 So.3d 313 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2009) (noting technological proliferation of records and burdens on government)
- Dipaola v. Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, 155 So.3d 49 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2014) (Attorney General opinions can have persuasive weight)