259 So. 3d 421
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- In May 2015 Emily Washington (attorney at MacArthur Justice Center) requested from the Orleans Parish District Attorney (DA) all records of subpoenas/subpoenas duces tecum issued under La. C.Cr.P. art. 66.
- The DA's office responded that locating responsive records would be unduly burdensome and directed her to the Clerk of Criminal District Court; the DA did not assert nonexistence of records or produce responsive documents.
- Ms. Washington learned via media reports that the DA had issued Article 66-type notices without judge signatures and had no centralized retention policy; some responsive documents were apparently in DA custody.
- Ms. Washington filed a mandamus petition (seeking enforcement of the public records request); the DA filed exceptions claiming (1) unauthorized use of ordinary proceedings and (2) no cause of action. The trial court sustained both exceptions and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
- The court of appeal reviewed both exceptions de novo and reversed: it held discovery may be scheduled in summary mandamus proceedings and that the petition met the six Lewis v. Morrell requirements for a public-records mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff improperly used ordinary proceedings instead of summary proceedings | Washington says she filed a mandamus (summary) and limited pre-contradictory discovery is permissible to respond to DA's burdensomeness claim | DA contends requesting pre-hearing discovery converted the matter into an ordinary proceeding, violating La. R.S. 44:35(C) | Reversed: Article 2596 allows applying ordinary-procedure rules (including discovery) in summary mandamus; no evidence Washington sought ordinary proceedings | |
| Whether the petition states a cause of action for mandamus under the Public Records Law | Washington: petition satisfies the six Lewis v. Morrell requirements (request made, person, custodian, public records, existence, failure to respond) | DA: various substantive challenges to the petition’s scope and whether requested documents were those originally requested | Reversed: Accepting well‑pleaded facts, petition states a cause of action; merits issues are for the contradictory hearing | |
| Whether requested records are public/exempt or nonexistent | Washington: subpoenas/DA notifications in closed matters or where no prosecution occurred are public; media reporting shows records exist in DA custody | DA: searching would be unduly burdensome; implied suggestion that some requested items may not be those originally requested | Court: DA never claimed nonexistence; petition plausibly alleges existence and that some records are public | Court treated existence and public-record status as factual matters for trial |
| Award of appellate attorney fees to DA for unsuccessful defense of appeal | DA requested fees if judgment affirmed | Washington opposed | Denied — appeal reversed, so fees request denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La. 2011) (standard: appellate review of procedural rulings; written reasons do not form part of judgment)
- Bossier Parish Police Jury v. Garber, 235 So.3d 1200 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2018) (de novo review of certain legal questions)
- O'Dwyer v. Edwards, 15 So.3d 308 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (de novo review of exception of no cause of action)
- Tuban Petroleum, L.L.C. v. SIARC, Inc., 11 So.3d 519 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (procedural-review principles)
- Succession of Gendron, 236 So.3d 802 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2017) (discovery may be necessary in summary proceedings under La. C.C.P. art. 2596)
- Lewis v. Morrell, 215 So.3d 737 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (six requirements for mandamus under the Public Records Law)
- Koch v. Covenant House New Orleans, 109 So.3d 971 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (scope and purpose of exception of no cause of action)
- Farmer v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 806 So.2d 89 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (standards for pleading dismissal on exceptions)
- R-Plex Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Desvignes, 61 So.3d 37 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (peremptory exception of no cause of action is a legal question reviewed de novo)
- City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 640 So.2d 237 (La. 1994) (limits on dismissal via peremptory exception where pleadings may support relief)
- City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 739 So.2d 748 (La. 1999) (conceding well‑pleaded facts, plaintiff may still have no legal remedy)