Patrick Lacour v. City of Alexandria

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

18-151

PATRICK LACOUR

VERSUS

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, ET AL.

************
APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 260,217
HONORABLE MONIQUE RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

************
SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE
************
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Patrick Lacour
In Proper Person
4806 Wendover Blvd.
Alexandria, LA 71303
(318) 442-6192
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:

Claude F. Reynaud, Jr.
Carroll Devillier, Jr.
Kelsey A. Clark
Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP
One American Place, Suite 2300
P.O. Box 3197
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
(225) 387-4000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
City of Alexandria, et al.

COOKS, Judge.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This appeal arises from a Public Records Request (the Request) made by

Patrick Lacour to the City of Alexandria. The Request concerned long-standing

federal litigation between the City of Alexandria and CLECO Corporation

(CLECO). The facts established the City had a contract with CLECO styled

“Agreement for Wholesale Electric Energy Service.” This Agreement, which was

for a five-year term, was executed in February of 2010, with an effective date of

June 1, 2010.

Pertinent to this case, the Agreement provided the City was permitted, on an

annual basis, to choose from one of two pricing options: (1) the Facilities Charge

Cost Model (referred to as Option A), or (2) the Heat Rate Cost Model (referred to

as Option B). Pursuant to this, the City would inform CLECO of its choice

annually. However, if the option selected did not change from one year to the

next, no formal election was sent by the City to CLECO.

On July 10, 2017, Lacour sent the aforementioned Request to the City

seeking “access to review all documents related to the analysis and communication

to CLECO of the annual election of either Option A or Option B.” The City

informed Lacour on July 14, 2017, they were working on the Request, and when

the documents were gathered they would be provided to him. On that same day,

Lacour contacted the City and requested “all documents related to the analysis of

the annual election.” Michael Marcotte, the Utility Director for the City, replied to

Lacour on July 18, 2017, informing him certain specific records would not be

produced because they were “Confidential Business Information” that was exempt

from production under the Louisiana Public Records Act. La.R.S. 44:1-41.

On July 26, 2017, the City provided what it considered to be the non-exempt

responsive documents to Lacour. Those documents comprised two letters, dated
2

August 16, 2010, and August 1, 2011, from the City to CLECO which set forth the

City’s annual election of the pricing model. The City maintained these two letters

were the only documents that were responsive to Lacour’s Request and were not

exempt from production under the Louisiana Public Records Act.

Subsequently, Lacour filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, seeking to

require the City to produce any additional documents that were responsive to his

Request, including any confidential information. The City maintained it could not

produce any other requested documents because they contained proprietary pricing

information, which the City was required to keep confidential under the

Agreement, and because the Louisiana Public Records Act specifically exempts

such information from disclosure. See La.R.S. 44:3.2.

According to the City, when it first received Lacour’s Request, it contacted

CLECO to inquire whether CLECO would object to the disclosure of the pricing

information. CLECO indicated it wished to maintain the confidentiality of the

documents related to pricing, thus prohibiting the City from providing it to Lacour.

Lacour’s petition was set to be heard on December 4, 2017. Prior to that

date, the City again contacted CLECO to request a waiver of the confidentiality

provisions in the Agreement in order to provide Lacour the documents in question.

On November 29, 2017, CLECO agreed to allow disclosure of the confidential

pricing information. The following day, the City provided that document to

Lacour. The City maintained with the production of that document, there remained

no other responsive documents to Lacour’s Request.

On the morning of the December 4, 2017 hearing, prior to beginning the

hearing the trial court held a status conference in chambers. The City informed the

trial court it believed all responsive documents requested by Lacour had been

provided. Lacour, who was representing himself, disputed this and insisted on

moving forward with the hearing.
3

At the hearing, Michael Marcotte, the City’s Utilities Director, and Charles

Johnson, the City Attorney, testified and were questioned by Lacour. Marcotte and

Johnson both maintained there was no additional documentation responsive to

Lacour’s Request. The trial court agreed and denied Lacour’s petition, finding it

was moot, as well as his request for penalties and attorney fees. The trial court did

award Lacour court costs in the matter. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

In his first assignment of error, Lacour contends the City’s response to his

Request is still incomplete. Specifically, he argues the City produced no

documents regarding what the parties referred to as the “Inoperable Option.” This

term referred to the fact that for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015, one of the two

options was unavailable to the City due to the inoperability of a CLECO plant.

Marcotte discussed this at the hearing:

Q. Are there any communications or analyses for 2013, 2014 and
2015?

A. There are no formal analyses. We elected not to move because of
the, uh – you had two options, Your Honor. One was a Heat Rate
Cost Model; one was a Facilities Cost Model. The Facilities Cost
Model was basically priced against one unit that CLECO had, their
Third Unit in Boyce, Madison Three. That unit was having
operational difficulties.
So, basically, at that point, the comparison was an Operable
Option to an Inoperable Option. So we went with the Operable
Option. There wasn’t a financial analysis at that point. It was a – it
was almost a yes/no question.

Reviewing the record, there is nothing to indicate the trial court erred in

concluding there were no responsive documents the City failed to produce.

Lacour’s brief contends it should not have taken this long for him to have obtained

the information as to the inoperable status of the CLECO plant. This complaint is

more appropriately a question as to whether the City acted unreasonably in its

disclosure of this information to Lacour, so as to be cast with penalties and

attorney fees.
4

The City is obligated under the Louisiana Public Records Act to produce all

“records” in existence that are responsive to a citizen’s request. La.R.S. 44:32. As

the City notes, it is under no obligation to create documents or records in an

attempt to respond to a public records’ request. Williams Law Firm v. Board of

Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 03-79 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/2/04), 878

So.2d 557. We have found nothing in the record to establish the trial court erred in

finding the City complied with the requirements of the Louisiana Public Records

Act.

Next, Lacour argues the City was arbitrary and capricious in failing to timely

provide documents containing CLECO’s proprietary pricing information. As the

City notes, Lacour first argues the information was withheld by the City because it

contained proprietary information, but then argues the City withheld production

because it was the “work product” of Marcotte.

The record is void of any support for the argument the City withheld the

information at issue because it was the work product of its employee, Marcotte.

The City, at all times, asserted the information at issue could not be produced due

to the confidentiality provision set forth in the Agreement with CLECO and the

fact the Louisiana Public Records Act does not “require the disclosure of

proprietary or trade secret information.” La.R.S. 44:3.2. The testimony was

uncontroverted that the City, after receiving Lacour’s request, contacted CLECO

that same month to inquire if CLECO would waive its confidentiality protection

under the Act and allow the City to release the information to Lacour. Because

CLECO initially refused to allow the disclosure, the City could not release the

document to Lacour. When CLECO finally agreed to waive its confidentiality

5

rights on November 29, 2017, after the City again requested it do so, the document

in question was released to Lacour the next day.1

Lacour also argues the City could have produced the document at issue by

simply redacting the proprietary pricing information of CLECO. However, it was

established the document at issue was a spreadsheet that contained heat rates and

other information from which CLECO’s confidential pricing could easily have

been derived. Moreover, it was stated to protect the confidentiality of CLECO’s

confidential information, everything but the five-word title of the spreadsheet

would have needed to be redacted. Obviously, this would have accomplished

nothing.

Lacour argues in brief the trial judge took issue with the City’s failure to

provide him the fully redacted document. This is simply not correct. Lacour in

brief noted the trial court did state at the hearing that the City “could have provided

you something and redacted all of the information out of it.” However, Lacour

fails to provide the entirety of the trial court’s comments on the matter, wherein it

noted the futility of such a production. The trial court stated, “[the City] could

have redacted everything, except those five words at the top, which does nothing.”

(Emphasis added.) Thus, we find the City was reasonable in its decision not to

release the fully redacted spreadsheet which, as the trial court specifically found,

would have accomplished “nothing.”

Lacour also claims he is entitled to civil penalties because the City failed to

meet the certification requirements of La.R.S. 44:34. That statute, in pertinent

part, provides:

1
Lacour, in his brief, states that CLECO “had no problem with sharing the information” and “the
record shows that CLECO and Plaintiff were in agreement that the documents were not
proprietary to CLECO.” We have found nothing in the record to support Lacour’s self-serving
statement that CLECO asserted the position that the document in question was not its proprietary
information. That statement by Lacour is totally inconsistent with the uncontroverted testimony
found in the record.
6

If any public record applied for by any authorized person is not in the
custody or control of the person to whom the application is made,
such parson shall promptly certify this in writing to the applicant, and
shall in the certificate state in detail to the best of his knowledge and
belief, the reason for the absence of the record from his custody or
control, its location, what person then has custody of the record and
the manner and method in which, and the exact time at which it was
taken from his custody or control.

In its initial production of documents on July 26, 2017, the City certified,

with the exception of document that were exempt from production, it had “no

further records responsive to [Lacour’s] request.” As the City notes, Lacour

acknowledged in his brief that the City informed him in an email sent on

November 30, 2017, that with the production of the disputed spreadsheet, “you

have been provided all documents responsive to your public records request.”

Finally, at trial, it was confirmed under oath during the hearing that there were no

other documents responsive to Lacour’s public records request.

The record reflects Lacour was informed throughout the process of what

documents were unable to be produced and for what reason. Although Lacour

argues he was never told why certain documents were not being produced and that

he did not understand the City’s position, he sent an email to Charles Johnson and

stated that he had been refused the disputed spreadsheet because it was exempt

pursuant to La.R.S. 44:3.2. Lacour’s citation to the specific exemption statute

belies his argument that he was not informed of the basis for the City’s

withholding of the disputed document.

Moreover, as the City notes, the purpose of La.R.S. 44:34 is to “prescribe

the response when the person does not have custody of the records.” Alliance for

Affordable Energy v. Frick, 96-1763, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/28/97), 695 So.2d

1126, 1132. Custody was not the issue in the present case. The question was

whether the document was exempt from production due to confidentiality pursuant

to La.R.S. 44:3.2.

7

The trial judge considered all of Lacour’s arguments below and determined

civil penalties were not warranted. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of

the trial court in that finding.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs

of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant, Patrick Lacour.

AFFIRMED.

8