Vourvoulias v. Movassaghi

From Sunshine Review

Jump to: navigation, search

This WikiFOIA article is a stub. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by either expanding this article or going to the Sunshine litigation project page and helping us expand other articles.

Vourvouliasvs.Movassaghi
Number: 2004 CA 0262
Year: 2005
State: Louisiana
Other lawsuits in Louisiana
Other lawsuits in 2005
Precedents include:
This case determined that the Louisiana Public Records Act allows only requests made individuals who directly and personally submit a request for records.

Contents

State sunshine
State laws
How to ask for records
Transparency headlines
Statutory changes
Notable FOIA requests
State Open Meeting Laws
State sunshine lawsuits
State court cases
E-mail access
Private agency, public dollars
The WikiFOIA portal


Vourvoulias v. Movassaghi is a February 11, 2005 decision of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal that interpreted the Louisiana Public Records Act to mean that the law only applies to those who individually, directly and personally submit a request for records.

[edit] Background

George Vourvoulias wanted records from Kam Movassaghi, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). Vourvoulias had his law firm submit the request. The request from the law firm was signed by Marti Bivona, a legal assistant.

The DOTD did not comply with the request, leading Vourvoulias to file suit. DOTD defended itself at the trial on these grounds:

  • Vourvoulias did not have a cause of action to sue them, since he never submitted an open records request to them. Rather, only Marti Bivona did.
  • The records Vourvoulias wanted were exempt.

[edit] Supporters of the FOIA request

[edit] Criticisms of the FOIA request

[edit] Ruling of the court

The trial court said the records were not exempt and ordered the DOTD to provide the records to the plaintiff. The trial court also ordered the DOTD to pay $3,500.00 in attorney's fees to the plaintiff.

The DOTD appealed the trial court's decision, saying the trial court had ruled improperly on the question of whether Vourvoulias had a right of action.

The court of appeals agreed with the defendant DOTD that only Bivona had a right of action against DOTD because only Bivona had submitted a records request.

[edit] Associated cases

[edit] See Also

[edit] External links