222 So. 3d 806
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- The New Orleans Advocate requested Rasier/Uber’s TNC driver registry (names, DOBs redacted) and aggregate trip data under the Louisiana Public Records Act. The City planned to disclose names, plate numbers, and active employment dates but to redact license numbers and birth dates.
- Rasier (Rasier, LLC) asserted a statutory trade-secret exemption; John Doe (an Uber driver) claimed a constitutional privacy right; both sought injunctive relief to block disclosure.
- The district court enjoined release of aggregate trip data but denied a preliminary injunction as to the redacted driver registry. Appellants appealed that denial; the City did not appeal the trip-data injunction.
- Evidence included an affidavit from Uber (describing recruitment, incentives, and competitive harm from disclosure) and Doe’s verified petition alleging prior harassment from a prior disclosure and an expectation of confidentiality.
- The appellate court held the registry information did not qualify under the Public Records Act trade-secret exemption but concluded Doe has a reasonable privacy expectation under the City’s TNC ordinances (City Code §162‑49(b)) and that his privacy interest outweighs the public interest.
- Result: the appellate court reversed the district court insofar as it denied the injunction for driver-registry disclosure and enjoined the City from releasing the redacted registry information; all other aspects affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redacted driver-registry data is exempt as a trade secret under La. R.S. 44:3.2 | Rasier: registry is proprietary, economically valuable, protected information; disclosure would enable competitors to poach drivers and harm business | City: Public Records Act narrowly limits trade-secret exemption to codes/formulas/methods or submissions for approval; registry is not such material | Denied: information not covered by §44:3.2 because it is not a code/pattern/formula/method nor submitted for approval; no trade-secret exemption applies |
| Whether release would violate driver’s constitutional privacy right (La. Const. art. I, §5) | Doe: had subjective expectation of confidentiality; City ordinances limit public disclosure for TNCs; prior harassment shows real risk of harm; privacy outweighs public interest | City: public records presumption of disclosure; district court found no privacy violation sufficient to enjoin release | Granted: Doe’s expectation was objectively reasonable under City Code §162‑49(b); privacy interest outweighed public access; injunction required without proving irreparable harm (Jurisich exception) |
| Whether irreparable harm must be shown for injunctive relief when a constitutional right is implicated | Rasier/Doe: once constitutional violation shown, Jurisich permits injunction without separate irreparable-harm showing | City: generally injunctive relief requires showing of irreparable harm | Court: Jurisich applies — no separate irreparable-harm showing required when conduct violates constitutional right |
| Scope of public records custodian’s obligations under city ordinance vs. public-records request | Doe: City Code delineates narrower TNC disclosure (names/addresses of permittee and vehicle counts), supporting privacy expectation for drivers | City: Advocate’s request for registry sought information the City intended to disclose consistent with public records law | Court: City Code §162‑49(b) limits what is to be made public re: TNCs and supports a reasonable privacy expectation for drivers, constraining custodian’s disclosure authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Jurisich v. Jenkins, 749 So.2d 597 (La. 1999) (prohibitory injunction may issue without showing irreparable harm where conduct violates law or a constitutional right)
- Angelo Iafrate Constr., L.L.C. v. State Department of Transportation and Development, 879 So.2d 250 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (public-records exemptions narrowly construed; doubts resolved for disclosure)
- Webb v. City of Shreveport, 371 So.2d 316 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (balancing public records disclosure interest against individual privacy rights)
- Capital City Press v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metro. Council, 696 So.2d 562 (La. 1997) (describing right to privacy as protection from unnecessary public scrutiny)
- Landis v. Moreau, 779 So.2d 691 (La. 2001) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of access)
- Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 983 So.2d 84 (La. 2008) (documents attached to memoranda are not evidence unless formally offered)
- South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 555 So.2d 1370 (La.) (injunctive standards where conduct contravenes law)