Opinion
NUMBER 2016 CA 1263
09-12-2017
JUNE LANDRY AND GARNELL YOUNG v. MONICA A. HAMILTON, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE MUNICIPAL CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF WHITE CASTLE AND GERALD WILLIAMS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF WHITE CASTLE
Seth M. Dornier Baton Rouge, LA and Charlotte McDaniel McGehee Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants June Landry and Garnell Young Valencia Vessel Landry Terry C. Landry, Jr. Plaquemine, LA Counsel for Defendants/Appellants Monica A. Hamilton, in her official capacity as the municipal clerk for the Town of White Castle and Gerald Williams in his official capacity as the Mayor of the Town of White Castle
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Iberville State of Louisiana
Suit Number 75,376 Honorable Alvin Batiste, Jr., Presiding Seth M. Dornier
Baton Rouge, LA and Charlotte McDaniel McGehee
Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
June Landry and Garnell Young Valencia Vessel Landry
Terry C. Landry, Jr.
Plaquemine, LA Counsel for Defendants/Appellants
Monica A. Hamilton, in her official
capacity as the municipal clerk for the
Town of White Castle and Gerald
Williams in his official capacity as the
Mayor of the Town of White Castle BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND McCLENDON, JJ. GUIDRY, J.
In this action seeking production of records pursuant to the Public Records Act, plaintiffs, June Landry and Garnell Young, appeal from a trial court judgment assessing civil penalties and attorney's fees against the Town of White Castle. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for recovery under the Public Records Act, asserting that they had made numerous public records requests of the Town of White Castle for particular records, documents, and information in the possession, custody, and control of the municipality, but the defendants had failed to comply with the Public Records Act, La. R.S. 44:1, et seq., by refusing to produce the requested records. As such, plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus, an injunction and other orders of the court compelling the defendants to produce the documents, records, and information subject to their public records requests; an award of costs, fees and attorney's fees associated with the filing of their action; and civil penalties and damages pursuant to La. R.S. 44:35(E)(1) and (E)(2).
Following a hearing on the plaintiffs' petition, the trial court granted an order of mandamus, ordering that the Town of White Castle provide the plaintiffs with copies of the requested documents at a charge of fifty cents per page. The trial court further found that the actions of the Town of White Castle in refusing to produce the documents requested by the plaintiffs was unreasonable, and as such, the plaintiffs were entitled to a civil penalty. The trial court also ordered the Town of White Castle to pay costs of the proceeding and attorney's fees. The trial court set a hearing date of April 28, 2016, for the determination of the amount of attorney's fees and civil penalties owed by the Town of White Castle to plaintiffs.
Thereafter, following the April 28, 3016 hearing, the trial court signed a judgment ordering that the Town of White Castle pay June Landry a civil penalty in the amount of $5.00 per day, excluding weekends and holidays, starting January 20, 2015 through March 31, 2016, amounting to 296 days, for a total of $1,480.00, plus attorney's fees in the amount of $5,000.00. The trial court also ordered that the Town of White Castle pay Garnell Young a civil penalty in the amount of $5.00 per day, excluding weekends and holidays, starting on March 10, 2015 through March 31, 2016, amounting to 263 days, for a total of $1,315.00, and attorney's fees in the amount of $5,000.00.
Plaintiffs now appeal from the trial court's judgment, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering penalties against the Town of White Castle in the amount of $5.00 per day and in awarding attorney's fees of $5,000.00 for each plaintiff, as these amounts were abusively low.
Plaintiffs assign as error on appeal the trial court's determination that fifty cents per page is a "reasonable" copy charge under the Public Records Act. However, the April 6, 2016 judgment, granting the writ of mandamus and decreeing that the Town of White Castle's price of fifty cents per page for the copying of the requested public records is a reasonable charge, is not the subject of the instant appeal. Rather, the only judgment from which the plaintiffs sought an appeal is the June 16, 2016 judgment, as amended, awarding civil penalties and attorney's fees. As such, we will only consider on appeal the assignments of error as related to the June 16, 2016 judgment. --------
DISCUSSION
Civil Penalties
Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:35 provides that if a public records request is denied or not responded to within five days, the person seeking the records may be awarded court costs and damages, as well as civil penalties up to $100 per day. Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:35(E)(1) provides:
If the court finds that the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously withheld the requested record or unreasonably or arbitrarily failed to respond to the request as required by R.S. 44:32, it may award the requester any actual damages proven by him to have resulted from the actions of the custodian except as hereinafter provided. In addition, if the court finds that the custodian unreasonably or arbitrarily failed to respond to the request as required by R.S. 44:32 it may award the requester civil penalties not to exceed one hundred dollars per day, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays for each such day of such failure to give notification.
The first sentence of La. R.S. 44:35(E)(1) provides for actual damages if the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously withheld the requested record or unreasonably or arbitrarily failed to respond. However, the trigger for a discretionary award of civil penalties in the second sentence is the failure of the custodian to properly respond to a requester within the three-day statutory period detailed in La. R.S. 44:32(D). See Deshotels v. White, 16-0889, p. 9 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/16/17), ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (en banc). Because the trial court is vested with discretion in deciding to award civil penalties and the amount thereof, the issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in its award of a civil penalty. See City of Pineville v. Aymond, 08-0040, p. 4 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 4/30/08), 982 So. 2d 292, 295.
In ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and assessing a civil penalty against the Town of White Castle, the trial court specifically noted that it did not find the actions of the Town of White Castle in this case to be that egregious. The trial court noted that this was not a situation where the Town of White Castle ignored the plaintiffs' public records request, and as such, the court did not find the Town of White Castle's actions to be arbitrary or capricious. However, the trial court did find that the requirements placed upon plaintiffs by the Town of White Castle with regard to viewing the documents after hours and the Town of White Castle's claim of work product or privilege with regard to the requested documents was unreasonable. Furthermore, from our review of the record, it is clear that the Town of White Castle failed to respond to numerous requests by plaintiffs as required by La. R.S. 44:32(D).
Accordingly, given the evidence in the record, as well as the trial court's noted "tone of adversaries" between the parties, we cannot say that the awards of $1,480.00 in civil penalties to June Landry and $1,315.00 in civil penalties to Garnell Young were an abuse of discretion. Attorney's Fees
Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:35(D) provides:
If a person seeking the right to inspect, copy, or reproduce a record or to receive or obtain a copy or reproduction of a public record prevails in such suit, he shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and other costs of litigation. If such person prevails in part, the court may in its discretion award him reasonable attorney fees or an appropriate portion thereof.
Factors to be taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of attorney's fees include: (1) the ultimate result obtained; (2) the responsibility incurred; (3) the importance of the litigation; (4) amount of money involved; (5) extent and character of the work performed; (6) legal knowledge, attainment, and skill of the attorneys; (7) number of appearances made; (8) intricacies of the facts involved; (9) diligence of counsel; and (10) the court's own knowledge. Baker, 13-480 at p. 9, 127 So. 3d at 113. The trial court is vested with much discretion in determining the proper attorney's fees, and the award should not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Times Picayune Publishing Corporation v. New Orleans Aviation Board, 99-237, p. 11 (La. App. 5th Cir. 8/31/99), 742 So. 2d 979, 985, writ denied, 99-2838 (La. 12/10/99), 751 So. 2d 257.
The trial court held a hearing on the issue of attorney's fees, where it received evidence from counsel regarding their legal fees. After examining the evidence, the trial court noted that the amount of attorney's fees requested by counsel for June Landry was $25,125.00 and the amount requested by counsel for Garnell Young was $17,291.35. The court noted that the time sheets for both counsel reflect essentially the same days that they either met with the clients or reviewed pleadings, responded to emails, had conferences by telephone with opposing counsel or the court, and attended court hearings. The court found that based upon the hours submitted by counsel and the type of case involved, the fees submitted by counsel were unreasonable. The trial court thereafter set attorney's fees for each counsel at $5,000.00.
From our review of the record, and considering the facts and circumstances of this case in conjunction with the criteria outlined above, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $5,000.00 to June Landry and attorney's fees in the amount of $5,000.00 to Garnell Young.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. All costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs, June Landry and Garnell Young.
AFFIRMED.