VANDENWEGHE v. Parish of Jefferson
70 So. 3d 51
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Vandenweghe, an Assistant Parish Attorney, sought records under the Public Records Law from the Parish of Jefferson on Sept. 27, 2010; Parish produced a burdensome response noting thousands of emails and possible redactions.
- Parish characterized the request as burdensome and informed Vandenweghe that exemptions would be segregated and a cost notice provided.
- Parish filed peremptory, declinatory, and dilatory exceptions; issue framed around custodian capacity, standing to seek records, and mandamus viability.
- Trial court sustained lack of personal jurisdiction over Theriot (as custodian), no right of action, and no cause of action; dismissed mandamus petition.
- Court of Appeal held: (1) Theriot’s procedural capacity to be custodian must be determined on remand with proper custodial defendant; (2) Vandenweghe has a right of action under the Public Records Law mandamus; (3) no-cause-of-action ruling reversed; (4) case remanded for further proceedings consistent with rulings; (5) judgment on procedural capacity vacated in part, others reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Theriot can be sued as custodian | Vandenweghe sought records from the custodian; Theriot bears custodian responsibility. | Theriot lacked procedural capacity to be sued as custodian. | Remanded for full hearing to determine proper custodian. |
| Whether Vandenweghe has a right of action | Public Records Law allows any denied requester to seek mandamus. | Attorney-client/work product privileges bar disclosure; no right to compel release. | No right of action reversed; mandamus appropriate. |
| Whether mandamus is proper despite potential privileges | Mandamus can compel production after de novo review; exemptions to public records can be determined in mandamus. | Discretion in segregating privileged material precludes mandamus. | No-cause-of-action reversed; remanded to address exemptions; mandamus appropriate. |
| Whether the custodian must segregate nonpublic material under the Public Records Law | Custodian must segregate and disclose public portions; burden on custodian to justify restrictions. | Segregation could be burdensome; exemptions apply. | Remand to determine proper segregation consistent with La.R.S. 44:32, 44:33, 44:34. |
Key Cases Cited
- Times Picayune Pub. Corp. v. Board of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University, 845 So.2d 599 (La.App.1 Cir. 2003) (public access rights liberal construction; exemptions when law clearly provides otherwise)
- Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933 (La.1984) (liberal public records access; constitutional right to inspect)
- Alliance for Affordable Energy v. Frick, 695 So.2d 1126 (La.App.4 Cir. 1997) (mandamus may determine exemptions via contradictory hearing; public records act contemplates de novo review)
- Red Stick Studio Development, L.L.C. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Economic Development, 37 So.3d 1029 (La.App.1 Cir. 2010) (mandamus right of access after final determination or five-day delay)