Shane v. Parish of Jefferson, 150 So. 3d 406

William Henry Shane, a private citizen and member of private political groups, exchanged political e‑mails with Lucien Gunter (former JEDCO executive) using Gunter’s JEDCO e‑mail account; the e‑mails concerned the 2010 Jefferson Parish School Board elections.
Postlethwaite audit and a subsequent Jefferson Parish internal audit reviewed copies of those e‑mails; JEDCO declined a public‑records request for the e‑mails asserting they were private.
The Times‑Picayune requested the e‑mails from Jefferson Parish (which collected copies from the internal auditor); the Parish determined the e‑mails were public records and planned production.
Shane sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to block disclosure; the district court found the e‑mails were public records because they were used in the internal audit, ordered production with redaction of private citizens’ names, and issued a 30‑day preliminary injunction to allow redactions.
On appeal the court reversed: it held the e‑mails were private (not public records under La. R.S. 44:1A(2)(a)), the Parish was not the custodian merely because its auditor reviewed copies, and Shane’s privacy and associational interests outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Shane)	Defendant's Argument (Parish/Times‑Picayune)	Held
Are the e‑mails "public records" under La. R.S. 44:1A(2)(a)?	E‑mails were private political communications unrelated to JEDCO business, so not public records.	Because the e‑mails resided on a JEDCO account and were used in audits, they are public records.	Held: Not public records — content shows they were private and unrelated to JEDCO business.
Did Parish become a custodian by virtue of its internal auditor obtaining copies?	Mere review/possession by the internal auditor did not transfer custody or control from JEDCO.	The internal audit made the Parish a custodian and authorized production.	Held: Parish is not a custodian; JEDCO remains the custodian under local ordinance.
Do Shane’s privacy and associational rights bar disclosure even if records were public?	Shane has reasonable expectation of privacy and First Amendment associational rights that outweigh disclosure.	Public has a right to know about possible misuse of public resources; redactions suffice.	Held: Privacy and association outweigh disclosure; redaction would not salvage release of otherwise private communications.
Is a preliminary injunction warranted to enjoin production?	Injunction necessary to prevent constitutional invasion of privacy and association.	Disclosure is lawful; injunction improper or should allow only limited redactions.	Held: Preliminary injunction granted — disclosure enjoined.

Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933 (La. 1984) (constitutional right of access to public records construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
DeSalvo v. State, 624 So.2d 897 (La. 1993) (definition and scope of privacy under Louisiana Constitution)
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1958) (compelled disclosure of membership/associational information may violate First Amendment freedom of association)
Capital City Press v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council, 696 So.2d 562 (La. 1997) (test for reasonable expectation of privacy requires both subjective expectation and objective societal recognition)
Landis v. Moreau, 779 So.2d 691 (La. 2001) (public records statutes and liberal construction favoring access)