Local 100 v. ForrestLocal 100 v. Forrest
Lou Ann Owen, Baton Rouge, for Appellee Dеfendant Rose V. Forrest, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.
Before WATKINS, FOIL and TANNER*, JJ.
FOIL, Judge.
This appeal challenges a trial court‘s determination that the names and addresses of certified nurse‘s aides found in a registry maintаined by the Department of Health and Hospitals are exempt from public disclosure. We reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Local 100, Service Employees’ International Union, filed a request with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) seeking a list of the names of all certified nurse‘s aides, along with their telephone numbers, addresses and places of employment. DHH refused to provide the information. In response, plaintiff filed a petition for а writ of mandamus, alleging that DHH is required by federal law to maintain a file and does in fact maintain a file including the names and addresses of all certified nurse‘s aides in the State of Louisiana. Plaintiff asserted that DHH unlawfully denied it accеss to this information, and sought to recover costs, attorney‘s fees and civil penalties.
DHH defended its refusal to comply with plaintiff‘s request on the basis that the certified nurse‘s aides had an overriding privacy interest under
DISCUSSION
In its first assignment of error, plaintiff complains that the trial court erred in refusing to require DHH to disclose the names, addresses and places of employment of the certified nurse‘s aidеs. Although plaintiff initially requested the names, addresses, places of employment and telephone numbers of the certified nurse‘s aides, in its petition for mandamus, plaintiff limited its legal challenge to DHH‘s failure to disclose informаtion to the names and addresses of the nurse‘s aides. Plaintiff never mentioned the places of employment or telephone numbers in any pleading filed in the trial court. Furthermore, plaintiff never raised the issue of its entitlement to the telephone numbers to this court. We shall limit the issue raised in this appeal to the names and addresses of the nurse‘s aides, and we make no pronouncement regarding any other information plaintiff may have sought in its letters to DHH.
It is undisputed that DHH does in fact maintain a registry containing personnel information on all certified nurse‘s aides in the State of Louisiana. DHH is required to maintain this registry under federal law.
Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or as otherwise specifically provided by law, and in accordance with the provisiоns of this Chapter any person of the age of majority may inspect, copy or reproduce or obtain a reproduction of any public record.
In light of these constitutional and statutory provisions, it is established that access to public records is a fundamental right and any request for public records must be analyzed liberally in favor of free and unrestricted access to the records. Title Research Corporation v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933, 936 (La.1984). That right of access may only be denied when a law, specifically and unequivocally, provides against access to the public record. Id. Any doubt as to whether the public has an access to public records must be resolved in favor of the public‘s right to see. Id.
The burden is on the custodian to prove it lawfully withheld any information that is part of a requested public record.
In Webb v. City of Shreveport, 371 So.2d 316 (La.App.2d Cir.), writ denied, 374 So.2d 657 (La.1979), the court set forth a test to ascertain whether a claim of an invasion of the right to privacy justified a custodian‘s decision to withhold public records. First, the custodian or individual claiming the privacy right must prove that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy against disclosure of the information to a person entitled to access to the public information. If, and only if, a reasonable expectation of privacy is found, a court must weigh or balance the public records disclosure interest against the privacy interest. Id. at 319.
In Webb, a union representative sought to obtain the names and addresses of a city‘s employees. The city asserted the employees’ privacy interest in an effort to shield the information from disclosure. The court found that the city employees did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against governmental disclosure of their names and addresses. The court explainеd:
... complete privacy does not exist except for the eremite in the desert. A person‘s employment, where he lives, and where he works are exposures which we all must suffer. We have no reasonable exрectation of privacy as to our identity or as to where we live or work. Our commuting to and from where we live and work is not done clandestinely and each place provides a facet of our total identity.
Because the Webb court found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the names and addresses of public employees, it did not engage in a balancing test, and held that Louisiana law mandated disclosure of the infоrmation.
In the instant case, the trial court engaged in a balancing test simply because the individuals on whom the information was sought are private citizens. In support of this approach, DHH attempts to distinguish Webb on the basis that the individuals in this case are private citizens; whereas, the individuals in Webb were public employees. However, Webb was not premised on the fact that the individuals were engaged in public employment, but upon the fact that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his identity or address. This premise holds true whether the individual is a public or private employee. Furthermore, this court is not at liberty to craft new exceptions to the Public Records Law for informatiоn pertaining to private citizens.
In order to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in an individual‘s name or address, a state agency would have to show more than the mere appearanсe of such information on the public record.2 Since DHH has been unable to do so, we find that disclosure of the names and addresses of certified nurse‘s aides would not amount to an unreasonable invasion of their right to privacy. Therefore, since DHH has not met its threshold burden of proving that the information is protected from disclosure by law, DHH must provide plaintiff with the names and addresses of all certified nurse‘s aides in Louisiana.
ATTORNEY‘S FEES
The Public Records Law,
PENALTIES
Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to penalties under
We do not find DHH‘s actions to be unreasonable or arbitrary, but instead find that it acted in good faith in asserting the privacy interest of the nurse‘s aides in refusing to disclose the requested information. Accordingly, we deny plaintiff‘s request for penalties.
CONCLUSION
Based оn the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed. The Department of Health and Hospitals is hereby ordered to furnish plaintiff with a list of the names and addresses of all certified nurse‘s aides in accordance with the dictates of the Public Records Law. The Department is ordered to pay all costs of this litigation, including the cost of this appeal in the amount of $337.86. This matter is remanded to the trial court to enter a reasonable аttorney‘s fee award and to assess court costs.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.