William Henry Shane v. the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, and the Jefferson Parish Economic Development Commission
209 So. 3d 726
La.2015Background
- In 2010 William Shane (private citizen) exchanged political emails with Lucien Gunter (then JEDCO Executive Director) using Gunter’s JEDCO email account; both were members of private political/business associations.
- A June 6, 2012 external audit and a subsequent Jefferson Parish internal audit identified de minimis use of JEDCO email for political activity and referenced specific emails.
- The Times-Picayune requested the emails as public records; JEDCO initially denied the request as purely private and protected by the state constitution; Jefferson Parish later obtained the emails in its audit and announced intent to release them.
- Shane sued to enjoin disclosure on privacy and associational grounds; the district court ruled the emails were public records (because they were used in audits) but ordered redaction of identifying information for private non‑employees before disclosure.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the emails were purely private; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the appellate court, and reinstated the district court order requiring redaction and release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the emails "public records" under La. R.S. 44:1? | Shane: emails are private communications unrelated to JEDCO business and thus not public records. | Jefferson Parish/JEDCO/media: emails were used in external and internal audits and therefore fall within the statutory definition of public records. | Held: Emails are public records because they were used in audits (functions performed under authority of public law); content alone does not determine public‑record status. |
| Do constitutional privacy/association rights bar disclosure? | Shane: disclosure would invade privacy and chill associational/political activity; some contents intended to be private. | Media: public has strong interest in oversight of public employees and possible misuse of public office/resources. | Held: Balancing test favors release with redaction — redact identifying info of private non‑employees (names, contact info, employment, etc.) to protect privacy/association while allowing inspection. |
| Are Jefferson Parish and/or JEDCO custodians obligated to respond to records requests? | Shane/JEDCO: JEDCO is the custodian because emails originated on JEDCO accounts. | Jefferson Parish/media: Jefferson Parish obtained and had custody of the records for purposes of its audit and thus is also a custodian. | Held: "Custodian" includes any public official with custody or control (physical possession or legal control); both JEDCO and Jefferson Parish are custodians. |
| Standing and procedural issues (motion to strike reply brief) | Shane: challenges to standing and procedural filings asserted by media; objected to unauthorized reply brief. | Media: plaintiff has standing; reply brief permitted as supplemental under court rules. | Held: Shane has standing to challenge disclosure; motion to strike reply brief denied — supplemental/reply allowed under the Court’s rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. Moreau, 779 So.2d 691 (La. 2001) (Public Records Law construed broadly in favor of access)
- Copeland v. Copeland, 966 So.2d 1040 (La. 2007) (broad definition of "public records")
- Capital City Press v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council, 696 So.2d 562 (La. 1997) (privacy right is qualified and must be balanced against public interest)
- Bester v. Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, 779 So.2d 715 (La. 2001) (limited exceptions to public disclosure for internal judicial documents)
- NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1958) (compelled disclosure of associational membership can burden freedom of association)
- Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1973) (state must not choose means that unnecessarily restrict associational freedoms)