244 So. 3d 450
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mary Roper, former parish attorney, sent broad public-records requests (email/texts about her over six years) to Metro Council members and officials in Aug. 2014; some earlier requests had been withdrawn.
- Roper also filed a declaratory-judgment action challenging efforts to terminate her; discovery requests overlapped the public-records requests.
- The City/Parish IT director ran global searches; defendants produced roughly 800 emails in Aug. 2014 and later made thousands of pages available; Roper filed suit in Nov. 2014 alleging unlawful withholding.
- The trial court appointed an expert who reviewed ~57,000 documents and identified additional responsive material; defendants produced most responsive, non‑exempt documents and withheld items claimed privileged.
- Trial court found (1) mandamus request moot because all non‑exempt records produced, (2) only Councilwoman Marcelle acted arbitrarily/capriciously and was assessed additional sanctions (later partly reversed), (3) all defendants failed to timely provide exemption notices under La. R.S. 44:32D and were each assessed $4,000, (4) no actual damages awarded to Roper, and (5) limited attorney fees and an allocation of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether writ of mandamus was moot after production | Roper: production incomplete; mandamus still warranted | Defs: all nonexempt records produced, so mandamus moot | Court: mandamus moot — factual finding that all nonexempt responsive records were produced upheld (manifest-error standard) |
| Whether defendants acted arbitrarily or capriciously in withholding/delaying records | Roper: defendants withheld ~9,000 documents and were willful/unreasonable | Defs: extensive, good‑faith searches; complexity and volume explain delays/errors | Court: majority found no arbitrary/capricious conduct by most defendants; Marcelle found separately to have acted arbitrarily/capriciously (but limited consequences) |
| Whether defendants unreasonably failed to provide the 44:32D exemption notice and civil‑penalty scope | Roper: late or no exemption notices; penalties warranted (and larger) | Defs: no notice required if they were certain documents exempt; penalties excessive | Court: notice required whenever custodian determines a record is exempt; defendants unreasonably delayed notice → $4,000 per defendant affirmed (trial court’s amount within discretion) |
| Whether plaintiff proved actual damages causally linked to defendants' conduct | Roper: lost job and retirement benefits; mental anguish tied to defendants' conduct | Defs: no causal proof; other events caused harm; Roper didn’t timely inspect records | Court: Roper failed to prove causation; no actual damages awarded |
| Whether additional $12,000 penalty and attorney fees against Marcelle were proper | Roper: fees should be awarded against all defendants | Defs: fee award improper because mandamus moot; Marcelle singled out unfairly | Court: $12,000 additional civil penalty against Marcelle reversed (statute authorizes penalty only for failure to give notice); attorney fees against Marcelle affirmed as discretionary (evidence supported singling her out) |
| Whether defendants can recover costs to review records (reconventional demand) | Defs: seek reimbursement for review/production costs (~$23k) | Roper: no fee for examination/review unless court orders | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying recovery given defendants’ failure to provide timely exemption notice; reconventional demand denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Deshotels v. White, 226 So.3d 1211 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (right of access and narrow statutory exemptions; notice requirement under La. R.S. 44:32D)
- Capital City Press, L.L.C. v. Louisiana State University System Bd. of Supervisors, 168 So.3d 727 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (interpretation of remedies and penalties under La. R.S. 44:35)
- Revere v. Reed, 675 So.2d 292 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1996) (scope of civil penalties for failure to provide exemption notice)
- Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr‑McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 193 So.3d 1110 (La. 2015) (manifest‑error standard of review)
- Toups v. City of Shreveport, 60 So.3d 1215 (La. 2011) (definition and test for arbitrary and capricious conduct)
- Calogero v. Safeway Ins. Co. of La., 753 So.2d 170 (La. 2000) (factual findings and manifest‑error review)