Troy Lillie, Et Al. v. Stanford Trust Company, State Of Louisiana, Office Of Financial Institutions, And Sei Investments Company
Troy Lillie, Et Al. v. Stanford Trust Company, State Of Louisiana, Office Of Financial Institutions, And Sei Investments Company, No. 2024-CC-00922 (La. July 20, 2024).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- PLAQUEMINES PARISH COM'N v. Delta Dev. Co. 472 So. 2d 560
- Copeland v. Copeland 930 So. 2d 940
- State v. Birdsong 422 So. 2d 1135
Opinion text
Supreme Court of Louisiana
July 20, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
TROY LILLIE, ET AL.
VS.
STANFORD TRUST COMPANY, STATE OF
LOUISIANA, OFFICE OF FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, AND SEI INVESTMENTS
COMPANY
No. 2024-CC-00922
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Troy Lillie, et al. - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 581670, Court
of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2024 CW 0641;
_ _ _ _ _ _
July 20, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
07/20/2024 "See News Release 034 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2024-CC-0922
TR
OY LILLIE, ET AL.
VS.
STANFORD TRUST COMPANY, ET AL.
On
Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge
PE
R CURIAM
Gr
anted. Because the State of Louisiana, through the Office of Financial
Institutions is a defendant in this litigation and the trial will focus on its actions, the
general limitations on disclosure of OFI documents set forth in La. R.S. 6:103(H)
must yield to La. Const. Art. I, § 22, which mandates that all courts shall be open.
See, e.g., Plaquemines Par. Comm'n Council v. Delta Dev. Co., 472 So. 2d 560, 568
(La. 1985) (explaining “ public officials have a diminished right to privacy,
especially concerning information which had to do with their conduct in the
administration of their office . . .”). W e have consistently recognized there is “a
strong societal interest in public trials.” Copeland v. Copeland, 2006 -1023 (La.
6/2/06), 930 So. 2d 940, 941 (citing State v. Birdsong, 422 So.2d 1135 (La.1982).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed insofar as it denies
relators’ motion for a public trial. The case is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
The motion to seal is denied. Relators shall be granted ten days from the date
of this order to retrieve the motion and documents pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
V, § 5.