Opinion

Long v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development

  • 916 So. 2d 87
  • 2005 La. LEXIS 2096
  • 2005 WL 1527757
Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Filed
Jun 29, 2005
Status
Published
Author
Knoll
On the bench
Johnson, Knoll, Reasons, Traylor
Cited by
41 cases
Authority
More cited than 1.0%

plaintiff failed to allege a claim against the DOTD where the crossing was off-system and plaintiffs alleged the DOTD had a duty to maintain

How later courts described this case

  • plaintiff failed to allege a claim against the DOTD where the crossing was off-system and plaintiffs alleged the DOTD had a duty to maintain

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

Rehearing denied.

KNOLL, J.,

dissenting in part on the application for rehearing.'

LI would grant a rehearing in part only on the issue concerning whether the three letters exchanged between the village of Bonita and DOTD were discoverable and admissible. I find it significant Bonita’s mayor penned two of the letters in question and all three letters were maintained in the village files. In my view, these letters form the very gray area of information that may be discoverable and admissible under a broad interpretation of 23 U.S.C. § 409 .

Although the opinion of this Court analyzes the current federal and state jurisprudence, I find it fails to duly recognize the well-accepted tenet that 23 U.S.C. § 409 is a statute that establishes an evi-dentiary privilege and “must be construed narrowly because privileges impede the search for the truth.” Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 144-45 , 123 S.Ct. 720 , 154 L.Ed.2d 610 (2003); see also Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345 , 102 S.Ct. 1103 , 71 L.Ed.2d 199 (1982). It is clear this Court attempts to view the documents in question with regard to the purpose for which they were created, but I find it does so without attention to the narrow interpretation Pierce County requires. Accordingly, I am concerned future litigants may view this Court’s resolution of the issue at hand as evidence that 23 U.S.C. § 409 may be broadly interpreted when narrow interpretation should be this Court’s guidepost. Therefore, I would grant rehearing solely to further address this issue.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.