Opinion ID: 567657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: louisiana public records act

Text: 44 Frey asserts a substantive statutory right to all of Amoco's Morganza records under Louisiana's Public Records Act, LA.REV.STAT. ANN. § 44:1(A)(2) (West 1982). Frey's claim is based on the fact that the Louisiana Conservation Commission unitized the Morganza field in 1982 and appointed Amoco as field operator. The district court interpreted the Public Records Act as excluding Amoco's Morganza records from its definition of public record. 11 741 F.Supp. at 602-03. We agree. 45 The purpose of the Public Records Act is to foster the inherent right of the public to be reasonably informed as to the manner, basis, and reasons upon which governmental affairs are conducted. Trahan v. Larivee, 365 So.2d 294, 298 (La.Ct.App.1978). Regardless of how many lessors' interests are affected and how much money is involved in a unitization, the decision to unitize and the choice of a unit operator affect only private individuals and corporations. 46 Only in Lewis v. Spurney, 456 So.2d 206 (La.Ct.App.1984) did a court mandate disclosure from a private entity under Louisiana's Public Records Act. The court permitted a newspaper to access the records of a corporation that received $25 million in state funds to promote the world's fair. But the court restricted access to records concerning expenditure of the public's funds, stating that [t]he public is entitled to see exactly where all this money has been spent. Id. at 208. The court emphasized that the public nature of the records required its decision regardless of the private nature of the entity maintaining the records. Id. at 207. 47 Because Amoco's Morganza field records bear no similar or discernable public nature, the district court properly held that they are not public records under R.S. 44:1(A)(2).